En un artículo anterior, ofrecí una simple razón por la cual el Corán no puede ser la palabra de Dios, ya que la proposición de que el Corán es la palabra de Dios implica una necesaria contradicción. Aquí, voy a presentar una razón igualmente convincente para rechazar el Corán como la palabra de Dios.
Como he aludido en mi post anterior, el Corán sostiene que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes. Según la Sura 3:52,
“…cuando Isa [Jesús] sintió incredulidad en ellos, dijo: “Quiénes son mis ayudantes en el camino de Allah?” Los discípulos dijeron: “Nosotros somos ayudantes de Allah. Creemos en Alá; así que sea nuestro testigo de que somos musulmanes.”
De acuerdo con el Corán, no hay duda de que los apóstoles eran musulmanes, bajo Jesús. Pero, qué pasaría si pudiéramos establecer que la enseñanza de los apóstoles difiere radicalmente de las enseñanzas de Mahoma y el Corán? Aquí hay un argumento para reflexionar:
Premisa 1: Si los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas, el Islam es falso.
Premisa 2: Los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas.
Conclusión: Por lo tanto, el Islam es falso.
Para que un musulmán escape de la conclusión, él o ella tiene que rechazar una de estas dos premisas. ¿Qué posibles rutas de escape podrían estar disponibles? Una ruta de escape podría ser decir que los discípulos de Jesús fueron engañados o [que estaban] de alguna manera equivocados —o tal vez corrompieron el verdadero mensaje de Jesús en algún momento después de esto. O tal vez incluso los 12 discípulos de Jesús ni siquiera están en mente aquí. Esta ruta de escape, sin embargo, es bloqueada por la Sura 61:14,
Oh, vosotros que creéis, sois partidarios de (la religión de) Alá, así como Isa, hijo de María, dijo a los Discípulos: “¿Quiénes son mis partidarios de Allah?” Los Discípulos dijeron: “Somos partidarios de (la religión de) Allah”. Así creyó un grupo de los hijos de Isra’il, y otro grupo no creyó. Entonces apoyamos a los que creyeron en contra de su enemigo, y se convirtieron en vencedores.
Por lo tanto, tal especulación se ejecuta en el siguiente problema: los apóstoles de Jesús fueron los vencedores que subieron al dominio debido al apoyo de Alá para ellos, indicando que su mensaje fue aprobado por Alá. Esto queda claro también cuando leemos en la Sura 3:55:
Cuando Allah dijo: “Oh Isa, yo te tomaré en tu totalidad y te elevaré hacia Mí, y para limpiarte de los incrédulos, y para colocar a los que te siguen por encima de los que no creen hasta el Día de la Resurrección.
En forma silogística, el argumento puede resumirse de la siguiente manera:
Premisa 1: Hubo vencedores que subieron al dominio quienes Alá apoyó (Sura 3:55, Sura 61:14).
Premisa 2: O los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús o no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.
Premisa 3: Si no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús, entonces veríamos los registros de estos vencedores no apóstoles.
Premisa 4: No vemos tales registros.
Premisa 5: Por lo tanto, es falso que los vencedores no fueron apóstoles.
Conclusión: Por lo tanto, los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.
Por lo tanto, cuando leemos la Sura 3:52, podemos estar seguros de que se está refiriendo a los discípulos. Allah bendijo a estas personas. Fueron los apóstoles los que Alá trajo al dominio y vindicó.
Pero ahora un musulmán podría preguntar: “¿Cómo sabes que los apóstoles rechazaron las enseñanzas islámicas básicas?”
Es a esta pregunta que ahora vuelvo mi atención.
Considere a Pablo, el apóstol.
Ahora bien, entiendo que el apóstol Pablo no fue uno de los discípulos originales de Jesús, sino que se convirtió al cristianismo siguiendo una visión de Jesús en el camino a Damasco en Hechos 9. Pero voy a argumentar que Pablo fue aprobado por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Esto sugiere fuertemente que su visión acerca de la naturaleza de Dios e identidad y misión de Cristo coincidió con la de los discípulos. En cualquier caso, aun en ausencia de la evidencia que estoy a punto de presentar, si tomamos en serio la Sura 3:55 y la Sura 61:14, entonces la enseñanza de Pablo debe haber sido consistente con los discípulos, porque el cristianismo que prevalecía es lo que los musulmanes polemistas consideran que es el cristianismo paulino —y el Corán nos dice que los verdaderos seguidores de Jesús fueron los que lograron el dominio y se convirtieron en los vencedores.
¿Estoy presentando una idea absurda con esta disputa? No; de hecho, estoy en buena compañía. Considere las siguientes citas de respetados comentaristas coránicos:
El renombrado comentarista del siglo XIII, Al-Qurtubi, dice de Sura 61:14:
“Se dijo que este versículo fue revelado acerca de los apóstoles de Jesús, que la paz y la bendición sean con él. Ibn Ishaq declaró que de los apóstoles y discípulos que Jesús envió (para predicar) se encontraban Pedro y Pablo que fueron a Roma; Andrés y Mateo que fueron a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás que fue a Babel en las tierras orientales; Felipe que fue a África; Juan fue a Dacsos, que es la tribu a la que pertenecían los durmientes de la cueva; Jacobo fue a Jerusalén; Bartolomé fue a las tierras de Arabia, específicamente Al-Hijaz; Simón que fue a los bárbaros; Judas y Barthas que fueron a Alejandría y sus regiones circundantes”.
Allah los apoyó (a los apóstoles) con evidencia para que prevalecieran (thahirin) lo que significa que se convirtieron en el grupo al mando. Tal como se dice, “Un objeto apareció en la pared” lo que significa que es claramente visible (alu-wat) en la pared. Alá, que es glorificado y exaltado, conoce mejor la verdad y para Él es el regreso y la retirada.
El Sirat Rasul Allah de Ibn Ishaq (traducción al español, página 653), la biografía más antigua de Muhammad, dice lo siguiente:
“Aquellos a quienes Jesús hijo de María envió, los discípulos y los que vinieron después de ellos, en la tierra fueron: Pedro el discípulo y Pablo con él, (Pablo pertenecía a los seguidores y no era un discípulo) a Roma. Andrés y Mateo a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás a la tierra de Babel, que está en la tierra del oriente; Felipe a Cartago y África; Juan a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva; Santiago a Jerusalén, que es Aelia la ciudad del santuario; Bartolomé a Arabia, que es la tierra de Hijaz; Simón a la tierra de los bereberes; Judá, que no era uno de los discípulos, fue puesto en lugar de Judas”.
O considere la Historia de Al Tabari (Volumen IV, página 123):
“Entre los apóstoles, y los seguidores que vinieron después de ellos, fueron el apóstol Pedro y Pablo que era un seguidor y no un apóstol; fueron a Roma. Andrés y Mateo fueron enviados al país cuyo pueblo es caníbal, una tierra de negros, pensamos; Tomás fue enviado a Babilonia en el este, Felipe a Qayrawan (y) Cartago, es decir, África del Norte. Juan fue a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva, y Santiago a Jerusalén, es decir Aelia. Bartolomé fue enviado a Arabia, a saber, el Hijaz; Simeón a la tierra de los bereberes en África. Judas no era entonces un apóstol, así que su lugar fue tomado por Ariobo. Él ocupó el lugar de Judas Iscariote después de que este último había perpetrado su hecho”.
Así, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari e Ibn Ishaq todos son llevados a alabar al apóstol Pablo como una consecuencia directa de estos versículos.
Hay varias razones historiográficas independientes para pensar que la enseñanza de Pablo fue aprobada por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Entre ellos se encuentran los siguientes:
Razón 1: Los individuos en la iglesia primitiva, quienes son comúnmente asociados con los apóstoles (Policarpo, Clemente e Ignacio) hablan aprobando sus cartas.
Razón 2: La iglesia primitiva nunca muestra el conocimiento de una disensión fundamental entre Pablo y Pedro sobre asuntos pertinentes a la cristología y la naturaleza de Dios, a pesar de que a menudo lo mencionan junto al apóstol Pedro.
Razón 3: Pablo nos dice en Gálatas 2 que subió a Jerusalén con Bernabé para confirmar que el evangelio que estaba predicando a los gentiles era el mismo que el suyo. Es improbable que haya inventado esta historia para apoyar su propia autoridad apostólica, porque en el mismo capítulo también menciona la disputa que ocurrió entre Pablo y Pedro en cuanto a la circuncisión cuando Pedro vino a Antioquía.
Razón 4: Pablo hace un comentario desinteresado sobre el Apóstol Santiago en Gálatas 1: 18-19:
Después de tres años subí a Jerusalén para visitar a Cefas y permanecí con él quince días, pero no vi a ninguno de los otros apóstoles, excepto a Santiago, hermano del Señor.
Mire el comentario desinteresado de Pablo sobre Santiago. Si Pablo era un verdadero Apóstol inventando historias, no esperaríamos que él mencionara a Santiagp de pasada sin hacer un punto. El hecho de que Pablo simplemente menciona a Santiago en esta manera de hablar, persuade a los historiadores de que Pablo estaba recordando los hechos reales acerca de su asociación con la iglesia primitiva y los Apóstoles.
Razón 5: Pablo escribe en 1 Corintios 15: 9-11,
“Porque yo soy el menor de los apóstoles, indigno de ser llamado apóstol, porque perseguí a la iglesia de Dios, pero por la gracia de Dios soy lo que soy, y su gracia para mí no fue en vano. He trabajado más duro que cualquiera de ellos, aunque no fue por mí, sino por la gracia de Dios que está conmigo. Y si yo o ellos, así predicamos y creíamos”.
Así Pablo parece endosar a los otros apóstoles e incluso llega a decir que se considera menos que el más pequeño de ellos. Pablo parece asumir que los cristianos corintios también creyeron que su mensaje era consistente con los otros apóstoles. Esto sugiere fuertemente que Pablo y los otros apóstoles generalmente acordaron los temas centrales de la fe.
La teología de Pablo estaba radicalmente en desacuerdo con la enseñanza central islámica, ya que Pablo afirmó no sólo la deidad de Cristo, sino también la crucifixión y la resurrección (todas ellas expresamente rechazadas por el Islam).
Para los propósitos de la discusión, apelaré solamente a las obras incontestadas de Pablo, las obras que todos los historiadores cristianos y no cristianos conceden por unanimidad fueron escritas por él.
En Filipenses 2: 5-11, Pablo cita lo que es probablemente un himno cristiano temprano:
“Haya, pues, en vosotros este sentir que hubo también en Cristo Jesús, el cual, siendo en forma de Dios, no estimó el ser igual a Dios como cosa a que aferrarse, sino que se despojó a sí mismo, tomando forma de siervo, hecho semejante a los hombres; y estando en la condición de hombre, se humilló a sí mismo, haciéndose obediente hasta la muerte, y muerte de cruz. Por lo cual Dios también le exaltó hasta lo sumo, y le dio un nombre que es sobre todo nombre, para que en el nombre de Jesús se doble toda rodilla de los que están en los cielos, y en la tierra, y debajo de la tierra; y toda lengua confiese que Jesucristo es el Señor, para gloria de Dios Padre”.
La crucifixión de Jesús ya está en desacuerdo con la teología islámica (ver Sura 4: 157-158). Además, existen al menos tres razones por las que este texto enseña la deidad de Cristo:
Razón 1: Se dice que Cristo estaba “en la forma de Dios” y luego “tomó la forma de un siervo” —él está poniendo a los dos en la misma categoría, ya que utiliza la palabra griega morphé (que significa “forma”), En ambas cláusulas.
Razón 2: El contexto del pasaje nos instruye a emular la humildad de Cristo. Pero no es un acto de humildad por parte de una criatura el no buscar ser como Dios.
Razón 3: Los versículos 10 y 11 se enlazan con Isaías 45:23: “Ante mí [es decir, Yahweh] toda rodilla se doblará, toda lengua jurará lealtad.”
Para dar otro ejemplo, Pablo parece expandirse sobre el shema (de Deuteronomio 6: 4) en 1 Corintios 8: 6, identificando a Jesucristo como el Señor del shema:
Pero para nosotros hay un solo Dios, el Padre, de quien son todas las cosas y por quien nosotros somos, y un solo Señor, Jesucristo, por medio del cual son todas las cosas y por el cual somos.
Esto sugiere, por extensión, que los discípulos de Jesús también afirmaron la deidad de Cristo. También parece improbable que hubieran llegado a una conclusión tan radical si Jesús mismo no se hubiera identificado de esta manera, especialmente dadas (1) las expectativas mesiánicas judías; (2) el concepto judío de Dios; y (3) las connotaciones de crucifixión a un judío.
Para concluir, no hay razón para pensar que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes como el Corán sostiene y en cambio tenemos todas las razones para pensar lo contrario. Esto presenta otro desafío formidable a la religión islámica y da una orden aún más racional para su rechazo.
Traducido por Jairo Izquierdo.
How to Become a True Student and a Better Apologist
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Michael C. Sherrard
This is a bit exaggerated, but I’m not sure that anybody is actually interested in learning anything anymore. We live in a political and religious playground filled with thumbs in ears and shouts of “nah nah nah nah, I can’t hear you.” Most people are guilty of this. You are likely guilty of this. Of course the extreme examples are the “safe spaces” on college campuses and the slanderous biased media reporting. But there is also the simple thing that you do everyday: you don’t listen. Nobody listens. If you heard me, you know this is true.
Rather than listen, what do you (and everyone else) do when someone else is talking? You’re thinking about what to say next. This is true of conversations of agreement and disagreement. As a pastor and a teacher, I’m routinely amazed and frustrated by the inability of one to actually hear what I’m saying, be it a friend or a foe. Stop doing this. Listen. You don’t really know as much as you think you do, and you don’t actually know the position one holds until you hear it from them. Develop the discipline to hear, really hear what someone is saying. It is respectful, and it is prudent for only in actually understanding a position can you engage it.
Understand that when you stop listening you do so because you have assumed something, and living in a land of assumptions is dangerous. You have either assumed that you perfectly understand the position being talked about or that you perfectly understand the way someone holds the position. Both are likely not to be true. And this is quite arrogant. This kind of arrogance is the luxury of the expert, not the student. And I suppose that is the problem. Everyone today thinks they are an expert. But the true expert only became such because of their ability to be a true student.
True students understand the value of listening. Arrogant, simple minded folk think they are always to be the teacher. You know, that guy you sat next to in college. The one who thought he should be teaching the class and took every chance to do so. You know, Frank, who now works at Chili’s. That’s who I’m talking about. But I digress.
What is needed in this highly charged political atmosphere is a bit of humility, humility expressed in the form of listening with the goal of understanding. Persuasion is still needed, but let persuasion come after understanding. If all commit to this, we will have truly safe spaces. They won’t be safe because of the absence of opposing viewpoints, but safe because of the presence of humility and respect and true learners. A world that freely discusses important issues and listens is a world where progress is possible and freedom reigns.
Those of you who seek defend the truth of the gospel will become a much better apologist if you learn how to listen. You will continue to grow in knowledge as you will learn how and why people hold their beliefs, not just what their beliefs are. People do not hold beliefs as nice and neat as your textbook. So embrace the mindset of a student and listen as much as you speak, and you will become more effective making the case for our reasonable faith.
Read “4 Ways to Become a Better Listener and a Better Apologist.“
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r3YZx5
Phobiaphobic
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Tim Stratton
It seems commonplace today for entire groups of people to be painted with a broad brushstroke and labeled as being afraid or fearful. The word “phobia” or “phobic” is often attached to the end of another word which is supposed to represent a group who is scared of other people.
So, what does it mean to be “phobic”? Consider Merriam Webster’s definition of phobia:
Oxford Dictionaries defines phobia as:
Most have heard of certain types of fears. Here is a list of common phobias:Arachnophobia — Fear of spiders
Claustrophobia — Fear of being enclosed in a small space
Acrophobia — Fear of heights
Given these definitions, one whose fears do not follow logically or is an irrationally fearful person is “phobic.” Thus, this label can be used to communicate a psychological disorder with the person who was shot with the “label gun.”
Homophobia
We hear this quite often when Christians are typically labeled as “homophobes.” The one wielding the “label gun” is attempting to communicate to others (reading their labels), that Christians have an irrational fear of gay people. To be clear: as a Christian I am definitely not fearful or scared of homosexuals or anyone in the LGBT community. In fact, I do not know any Christians who are literally scared of gay people just because they are gay.
Christians do not hold an irrational fear of homosexuals; rather, most simply point out that the homosexual lifestyle is not intended by God — it is not the intended purpose of creation. Thus, the gay lifestyle “misses the mark,” and this is what it means to be sinful. These claims are not based in fear or hatred; they are grounded in love. Read my articles on this particular topic here, here, and here.
Logically demonstrating and pointing out that a person is living a sinful lifestyle should not be conflated with an irrational fear of the person. In fact, if anything is irrational, it is committing the logical fallacy of conflating a belief that a person is in sin, with fear of the person living in sin. This is unreasonable.
Islamaphobia
It is also quite popular today for Christians to be labeled as “Islamaphobes.” Is it irrational to fear Muslims? In one sense, perhaps, but in another sense, definitely not! The first thing we must realize is that it is vital to distinguish between irrational fears and healthy fears.
To be clear, although our world has been wrought with terror attacks from practicing Muslims since 9-11, the vast majority of Muslims are not violent extremists who wage jihad like those in ISIS. Thus, it seems irrational — in this sense — to fear all of those who are Muslim. After all, just because some Christians are mean to non-believers, it does not follow that all Christians act in a similar fashion.
There is a huge and vital difference, however, between these propositions. We are discussing ideologies. Specifically, we are discussing the teachings and commands of Mohammad and of Jesus — they differ drastically!
So, if one believes that Christianity it true, and they are not living consistently with the teachings of Jesus Christ (what Christianity is based on), if they come to think they should start living consistently with what they believe, then they will start loving all people from their neighbors to their enemies. The obedient Christ follower will make a daily attempt to not be mean and to love and respect all people as Jesus commanded. So, unless one fears being treated with love and respect, it would be nonsensical to fear a person who believes that Jesus’ commands correspond to reality and that our actions ought to correspond to reality too.
However, if one believes that Islam is true, then even if they were not living consistently with the teachings of Mohammad — and were not violent terrorists trying to kill all the infidels (they are peaceful) — it is still quite rational to have a healthy fear of this Muslim. Why is this? Because if he or she believes Islam is true and then starts to understand all that Mohammad actually commanded, and then decides to start living consistently with what they believe, then it follows that there is a good chance that they will harm you, or anyone else who is not a Muslim.
The Conflation of Ideas & Race
I will get back to that topic shortly. Before I expand on this, however, it is important to point out that many today seem to imply that if one is fearful of what Islam teaches, then you must be a racist (another label)! Those who assert this are once again guilty of the logical fallacy of conflation. Namely, conflating the beliefs of an individual with their DNA. These are two completely different issues that should not be conflated.
Allow me to make my point: regarding Islam — I am “Islamaphobic” (in a sense)! This is because I have an educated understanding of what Mohammad actually taught and commanded. Thus, all “good” Muslims (the ones who strive to live according to Muhammad’s teachings) should be feared because they want to convert or kill everyone who is not a Muslim.
Now, this has nothing to do with race (and to conflate this with race as mentioned above is a logical fallacy)! After all, if a white guy became a Muslim who believed he should “kill the infidel” as Mohammad commanded, then I would be just as “Islamaphobic” of that white guy because he wants to kill me. It is healthy and rational to fear those who want to kill you! This is about ideas — not race!
Thank God most Muslims are “bad Muslims” and do not follow all the teachings of Mohammad. However, as David Wood has shown, it does not take much to get an inconsistent Muslim (one who is peaceful) to become a consistent and “good muslim” (one who wants to kill you)! That is what scares me — but that is a healthy fear based on what Mohammad actually commanded.
The Jihadi Triangle
Consider the “Three Stages of Jihad” from David Wood:
As stated above, most Muslims are peaceful (thank God), but this is because they lack one of three essential ingredients that a seemingly “good” Muslim
ought to possess:
1- Belief
2- Knowledge
3- Obedience
The foundation of the Triangle of Jihad is a simple belief that Islam is true. This belief does not have to be justified as one can hold this belief merely because their father told them that “there is no God but Allah.” This foundation is not sufficient for Jihad and terror, but it is a necessary condition.
The second part of this triangle is knowledge. That is, the individual believes that Islam is true and now they study the Qu’ran and the Hadith to understand exactly what Mohammad taught and commanded. Basically, this is an educated Islamic believer.
The final part of the triangle of jihad is obedience. An educated Islamic believer who has reached the decision that he ought to be obedient to Allah’s prophet is one who everyone should fear! This individual believes that Islam is true, understands that Mohammad commanded Muslims to kill everyone who is not a Muslim, and they believe they should obey Mohammad’s teachings, and thus, they want to kill you!
Conclusion
It is vital to note that Jihad all starts with one simply believing that Islam is true. So, even though it seems safe to say that Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Cat Stevens, Dave Chappelle, or Lindsay Lohan (the latest convert?) probably will not attempt murder, they do possess the first necessary condition that logically leads to the other two lines of the jihad triangle. Let’s hope these Muslims never gain an understanding of what consistent Islam entails.
Bottom line: it is not a phobia if a fear of something or someone is justified and thus, a rational fear. In fact, it seems irrational to not possess a healthy fear of a person whose worldview entails your demise.
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Tim Stratton
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qCjShn
So What If Hitler Was A Christian? (Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?)
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Rajkumar Richard
The holocaust, masterminded by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, devoured 11 million lives, among them were 6 million Jews, and the other 5 million comprising of people with mental and physical disabilities, communists, resistance fighters, Slavic people, homosexuals, priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and anarchists etc.
The antagonists of Historic Christianity argue that Adolf Hitler was a Christian, thereby accusing Historic Christianity as the primary cause for the holocaust. The defenders of Historic Christianity counter-argue to deny Hitler’s Christianity; instead suggesting that he may have been an atheist and that his non-Christian worldview was the primary cause of the holocaust.
If Hitler was a Christian, would Hitler’s Christianity hurt Historic Christianity? In order to think through this theme, let us consider the case for Hitler’s Christianity, the case for Hitler’s non-Christianity, and the interpretation of Hitler’s apparent Christianity.
Hitler Was A Christian
Richard Dawkins argues that Hitler was not an atheist but a Catholic Christian. Dawkins quoted Hitler’s 1922 speech wherein he referred to Jesus as “my Lord and Savior.”1
Popular atheist author Michael A. Sherlock in his article, “The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot” argues for Hitler’s Christianity, “…Hitler was a Christian. This undeniable fact couldn’t be made any clearer than by his own confessions…
To begin, here are just a few of Hitler’s Christian confessions:
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” [3]
“The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defense of its own teaching.” [4]
“His [the Jew’s] life is of this world only and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as is character was foreign to the great Founder of this new creed two thousand years ago. And the Founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of His estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews…” [5]
Over and above these solid testimonies, there are other equally strong pieces of evidence that indicate that Hitler was a Christian, like the fact that his soldiers all wore the slogan, ‘Gott Mit Uns’ (God with us) on their belts, that his birthday was “celebrated from the pulpits until his death,” as Hitchens so eloquently put it, and that the Nazis published their own slightly revised Christian bible. [6]…”2
Hitler Was Not A Christian
As much as the atheist argues for Hitler’s Christianity, there is enough evidence to argue that Hitler was not a Christian.
Hitler and his Nazi regime were much influenced by the ideology of German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Hitler was consumed by the idea of “Superman” (who has a great “will to power” and would reign over other humans) that was taken from Nietzsche’s work “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”
Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche was married to Bernhard Förster, a prominent leader of the German anti-Semitic movement. Elizabeth was a friend of Hitler. Elizabeth influenced the Nazi regime to an extent that Hitler was influenced by the Nietzschean ideology.
Hitler was so fascinated by the Nietzschean ideology that he had copies of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” given to all his soldiers between 1933 and 1945. Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar at the invite of Elizabeth and proudly posed for photographs of him staring at the bust of Nietzsche.
When Hitler began his career, Germany was mostly a Christian nation. So Hitler often referred to himself as a follower of Christ. However, Hitler either imprisoned or executed more than 6000 clergymen on the charge of treasonable activity.
Significantly, after establishing the “National Reich Church” that projected Hitler as superman / god, Hitler banned the Bible and the cross. Bibles were replaced with copies of Mein Kampf and the cross was replaced with swastika.
Hitler also printed his version of the Bible, wherein words such as Messiah and Hallelujah were altered. Ten Commandments were revised to 12 Commandments. Hitler demanded worship; the Lord’s Prayer was revised, “Adolf Hitler, you are our great Fuhrer. Thy name makes the enemy tremble. Thy Third Reich comes; thy will alone is law upon the earth. Let us hear daily thy voice, and order us by thy leadership, for we will obey to the end, even with our lives We praise thee; hail Hitler Fuhrer my Fuhrer, given me by God. Protect and preserve my life for long. You saved Germany in time of need; I thank you for my daily bread; be with me for a long time, do not leave me, Fuhrer my Fuhrer, my faith, my light – hail, my Fuhrer.”3 This was recited by the Hitler Youth.
Hitler systematically gained control over the Protestant churches in Germany to make them an instrument of the Nazi regime. In response, the “Confessing Church” movement gained momentum within the German Protestant Churches to resist Hitler’s attempt.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian, pastor and a founding member of the “Confessing Church.” Bonhoeffer and other leaders of the Confessing Church opposed the Nazi regime and sought to establish the true identity of the Church. Ultimately, Bonhoeffer was executed by hanging.
Think about this; had Hitler been a genuine Christian what was the necessity for a Christian rebellion against Hitler? Christians subscribing to Historic Christianity fervently opposed Hitler to an extent that they risked their own lives. They were either imprisoned or executed for their anti-Hitler rebellion.
Would Hitler’s Christianity Hurt Historic Christianity?
When our atheist friend argues that Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian, should the defenders of Historic Christianity negate that argument to begin a street fight with the atheist? Debunking Hitler’s Christianity need not be the one and the only option for us.
The other option is to ask a question, “If Hitler was a Christian, was he a genuine Christian?” The atheist primarily posits Hitler’s self proclamation as evidence to his Christianity. Self proclamation is inadequate to one’s identity as a Christian. A genuine Christian not only proclaims himself to be a Christian, but also obeys Christ through his deeds.
Genuine Christians do not kill as Hitler did. The very extermination of the 11 million people screams against Hitler’s so-called Christianity. Hitler’s execution of the leadership of the confessing church that included Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who actually sought to establish the true identity of the church, is most surely not a genuine Christian’s deed.
Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian; he constantly attacked the Christian ideals. A genuine Christian would not follow the Nietzschean ideology.
Significantly, a genuine Christian would not elevate himself into a position of “Superman” demanding worship of any form whatsoever. On the other hand, Hitler, so fascinated by Friedrich Nietzsche, and so desperate to be a superman, demanded that people revere him.
Therefore, however which way we may want to think, Hitler, even though he may have been a self-proclaimed Christian, was not a genuine Christian. So Hitler’s Christianity does not harm Historic Christianity, and any claim to Hitler’s Christianity can and should be ignored completely.
Endnotes:
Websites cited were last accessed on September 8, 2016.
1https://whydoyoubelieve.org/2016/09/01/hitlers-religion-christian-apologetics-faces-the-hitler-question/
2https://michaelsherlockauthor.wordpress.com/2014/10/21/the-atheist-atrocities-fallacy-hitler-stalin-pol-pot-in-memory-of-christopher-hitchens/
3http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/churchhistory/godandhitler/
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q8wBYJ
The Difference Between What A View Asserts And Implies
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Luke Nix
Introduction
In any discussion in which we are defending a particular view, we must present both a positive case and the negative case. The positive case shows the evidence for the view we are defending, while the negative case shows the problems with the alternative being presented. Both are necessary in the overall case. The negative case is necessary because the adherent of the other view needs a logical reason to abandon their view for an alternative. The positive case is necessary because if an adherent is provided a logical reason to abandon their view, the other view being presented may not be the only option. The way that a view is shown to be incorrect is that its claims are put to the test against reality and reason. If the claims are found to not reflect reality or they are not logical, then the view is false. However, the claims of a view can be of (at least) two different types that require a different approach. Today I want to discuss the differences in the assertions and the implications of a view or model. Understanding the differences will help us be more aware of how to properly address them in other views, and the understanding will also assist us in our formation and critique of our own views. This applies to worldviews, scientific models, philosophical theories, and really anything view that makes claims about reality, regardless of which area of reality it is.
Assertions are propositions that a view or model explicitly claims to be true. When we are talking about worldviews, a worldview’s assertions are the collection of propositions that it claims are true about reality. This collection is explicitly stated and defended by the adherents to the particular worldview that makes those claims.
When critiquing a worldview, it is important that we properly understand the assertions of that worldview. If we fail to understand the assertions correctly, then we run the risk of arguing against a misunderstanding of the worldview- a strawman. If we argue against a strawman, then we have not shown the worldview we are attempting to critique as having any issues. Thus our critique has not provided the adherent of that worldview a valid reason to reject it in favor of an alternative. Our critique simply does not apply to the debate at hand, and we sound like some crazy person who has decided to just start telling a story that has no applicability to the discussion at hand. Unless we are willing to take the time to properly understand what a worldview asserts, there is really no point in attempting to argue against it.
Some assertions are essential to the worldview, so if they are shown to be false, the entire worldview falls apart. While other assertions are not so essential to the worldview, and if they are shown to be false, they can either be adjusted or removed altogether. What gets really interesting and often causes great disagreements among adherent to the same worldview is that they do not always agree upon what is essential to the worldview and what is non-essential. For details on this, see my post “Zombies of Christianity.”
Testing the assertions of a worldview or model is a direct way to test for its ability to accurately describe reality (truthfulness). If one of the essential propositions is found to be false, then the whole worldview or model may be rejected and an alternative needs to be found. If an assertion that is non-essential is found to be false, the worldview or model simply needs to be adjusted to accommodate the new data; however, that adjustment must not violate (it must be logically consistent) with the rest of the worldview or model. Sometimes what seems to be a minor adjustment affects the whole worldview or model, but not necessarily to the point of changing the essentials. As long as the essential assertions are not compromised, the main worldview or model remains intact, just with some different details. For those who are committed to a basic worldview (such as mere Christianity), the discovery that they need to adjust the details of their theology, science, or another part of the worldview does not undermine the historic event of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, so there is no need to be afraid or even resistant to change the detailed assertions of our worldview when the evidence demonstrates a non-essential detail to be incorrect.
What Are Implications?
While attacking the assertions of a worldview or model is a more direct challenge, one can use a more indirect method that is just as powerful. Many critiques of worldviews or models come in the form of critiquing, not the assertions of the view but, the implications. Implications are the collection of propositions that the assertions of a view necessarily leads to when the logic is carried to its end (or just a few steps from the assertion). Implications are not explicitly claimed by the worldview or its adherents, and in some cases, certain implications are not even held by the adherents because the adherents have not worked the logic through to discover them.
Necessary implications can be discovered using the assertions of the view and deductive reasoning. Any sound conclusion that results yet is not explicitly claimed, is an implication of the view. Since implications are necessarily dependent upon the assertions, it is, once again, extremely important to ensure that we properly understand the assertions of a worldview before attempting to deduce its implications.
As I mentioned earlier, implications can be used to critique a worldview indirectly but just as conclusively as testing assertions. If a validly concluded implication is false, then that indicates that one of the premises in the deductive argument is false. If that premise is an assertion of a worldview, then that worldview has been demonstrated logically to be false (as it is currently held- both essentials and non-essentials included). If an adherent wishes to maintain that worldview consistently, the false assertion would either need to be adjusted, so as to not lead to the false implication, or it would need to be removed from the worldview altogether. Of course, this flexibility would only apply to assertions that are not essential. If the false premise is an essential assertion, then the worldview has been completely falsified, and even the basic worldview cannot be believed reasonably, only emotionally- against reason, logic, and evidence.
Now, as I mentioned, not all implications are held by adherents to different worldviews or models. So it is extremely important to understand what an adherent believes. They may very well agree that a particular implication is false, but they may insist that they are being consistent. This is usually an opportunity to get them to go into further details of their worldview or model. If they are correct that they are being consistent with rejecting the implication, then it is likely that there is another assertion (or collection of assertions) that place a nuance on the “false” premise that adjusts it to avoid the implication (see my post “Providing Alternative Explanations“). The newly discovered nuances of the view may also make the implication not one that is necessary but one that is optional, which, of course, the adherent would simply avoid. Now, clarification does not always undermine a false implication; the adherent may simply not understand the deductive argument, or they are more committed to the false assertion than they are committed against the implication- they may be actually willing to accept the implication as true, which would demonstrate that they are actually more committed to a view than committed to truth.
Conclusion
The differences in assertions and implications are important to analyzing and addressing both properly. In our own views, the understanding will help us identify where a view can be flexible to follow the evidence where it leads. This allows us to adjust our own views as necessary and allows us to be more reserved and pointed, where applicable, in our claims of showing an opposing view to be inaccurate (which helps keep discussions cordial and respectful). In my discussions with people about different views, I try to identify if what I’m arguing against is an assertion or an implication; simply saying something like “I know you may not hold to this particular claim, but if you allow me to show you how your view logically leads to it by necessity, you may be able to more clearly see why I reject that view and why I think you should also, based upon your rejection of it.” In the effort to be more careful thinkers, recognition of the distinction between assertions and implications will also help in our effort to be more persuasive presenters and defenders.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2r59CLN
——————————
¿Por qué la relación de Pablo con la iglesia de Jerusalén presenta un problema para el Islam?
EspañolEn un artículo anterior, ofrecí una simple razón por la cual el Corán no puede ser la palabra de Dios, ya que la proposición de que el Corán es la palabra de Dios implica una necesaria contradicción. Aquí, voy a presentar una razón igualmente convincente para rechazar el Corán como la palabra de Dios.
Como he aludido en mi post anterior, el Corán sostiene que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes. Según la Sura 3:52,
“…cuando Isa [Jesús] sintió incredulidad en ellos, dijo: “Quiénes son mis ayudantes en el camino de Allah?” Los discípulos dijeron: “Nosotros somos ayudantes de Allah. Creemos en Alá; así que sea nuestro testigo de que somos musulmanes.”
De acuerdo con el Corán, no hay duda de que los apóstoles eran musulmanes, bajo Jesús. Pero, qué pasaría si pudiéramos establecer que la enseñanza de los apóstoles difiere radicalmente de las enseñanzas de Mahoma y el Corán? Aquí hay un argumento para reflexionar:
Premisa 1: Si los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas, el Islam es falso.
Premisa 2: Los discípulos originales de Jesús rechazaron las principales enseñanzas islámicas.
Conclusión: Por lo tanto, el Islam es falso.
Para que un musulmán escape de la conclusión, él o ella tiene que rechazar una de estas dos premisas. ¿Qué posibles rutas de escape podrían estar disponibles? Una ruta de escape podría ser decir que los discípulos de Jesús fueron engañados o [que estaban] de alguna manera equivocados —o tal vez corrompieron el verdadero mensaje de Jesús en algún momento después de esto. O tal vez incluso los 12 discípulos de Jesús ni siquiera están en mente aquí. Esta ruta de escape, sin embargo, es bloqueada por la Sura 61:14,
Oh, vosotros que creéis, sois partidarios de (la religión de) Alá, así como Isa, hijo de María, dijo a los Discípulos: “¿Quiénes son mis partidarios de Allah?” Los Discípulos dijeron: “Somos partidarios de (la religión de) Allah”. Así creyó un grupo de los hijos de Isra’il, y otro grupo no creyó. Entonces apoyamos a los que creyeron en contra de su enemigo, y se convirtieron en vencedores.
Por lo tanto, tal especulación se ejecuta en el siguiente problema: los apóstoles de Jesús fueron los vencedores que subieron al dominio debido al apoyo de Alá para ellos, indicando que su mensaje fue aprobado por Alá. Esto queda claro también cuando leemos en la Sura 3:55:
Cuando Allah dijo: “Oh Isa, yo te tomaré en tu totalidad y te elevaré hacia Mí, y para limpiarte de los incrédulos, y para colocar a los que te siguen por encima de los que no creen hasta el Día de la Resurrección.
En forma silogística, el argumento puede resumirse de la siguiente manera:
Premisa 1: Hubo vencedores que subieron al dominio quienes Alá apoyó (Sura 3:55, Sura 61:14).
Premisa 2: O los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús o no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.
Premisa 3: Si no fueron los apóstoles de Jesús, entonces veríamos los registros de estos vencedores no apóstoles.
Premisa 4: No vemos tales registros.
Premisa 5: Por lo tanto, es falso que los vencedores no fueron apóstoles.
Conclusión: Por lo tanto, los vencedores fueron los apóstoles de Jesús.
Por lo tanto, cuando leemos la Sura 3:52, podemos estar seguros de que se está refiriendo a los discípulos. Allah bendijo a estas personas. Fueron los apóstoles los que Alá trajo al dominio y vindicó.
Pero ahora un musulmán podría preguntar: “¿Cómo sabes que los apóstoles rechazaron las enseñanzas islámicas básicas?”
Es a esta pregunta que ahora vuelvo mi atención.
Considere a Pablo, el apóstol.
Ahora bien, entiendo que el apóstol Pablo no fue uno de los discípulos originales de Jesús, sino que se convirtió al cristianismo siguiendo una visión de Jesús en el camino a Damasco en Hechos 9. Pero voy a argumentar que Pablo fue aprobado por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Esto sugiere fuertemente que su visión acerca de la naturaleza de Dios e identidad y misión de Cristo coincidió con la de los discípulos. En cualquier caso, aun en ausencia de la evidencia que estoy a punto de presentar, si tomamos en serio la Sura 3:55 y la Sura 61:14, entonces la enseñanza de Pablo debe haber sido consistente con los discípulos, porque el cristianismo que prevalecía es lo que los musulmanes polemistas consideran que es el cristianismo paulino —y el Corán nos dice que los verdaderos seguidores de Jesús fueron los que lograron el dominio y se convirtieron en los vencedores.
¿Estoy presentando una idea absurda con esta disputa? No; de hecho, estoy en buena compañía. Considere las siguientes citas de respetados comentaristas coránicos:
El renombrado comentarista del siglo XIII, Al-Qurtubi, dice de Sura 61:14:
“Se dijo que este versículo fue revelado acerca de los apóstoles de Jesús, que la paz y la bendición sean con él. Ibn Ishaq declaró que de los apóstoles y discípulos que Jesús envió (para predicar) se encontraban Pedro y Pablo que fueron a Roma; Andrés y Mateo que fueron a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás que fue a Babel en las tierras orientales; Felipe que fue a África; Juan fue a Dacsos, que es la tribu a la que pertenecían los durmientes de la cueva; Jacobo fue a Jerusalén; Bartolomé fue a las tierras de Arabia, específicamente Al-Hijaz; Simón que fue a los bárbaros; Judas y Barthas que fueron a Alejandría y sus regiones circundantes”.
Allah los apoyó (a los apóstoles) con evidencia para que prevalecieran (thahirin) lo que significa que se convirtieron en el grupo al mando. Tal como se dice, “Un objeto apareció en la pared” lo que significa que es claramente visible (alu-wat) en la pared. Alá, que es glorificado y exaltado, conoce mejor la verdad y para Él es el regreso y la retirada.
El Sirat Rasul Allah de Ibn Ishaq (traducción al español, página 653), la biografía más antigua de Muhammad, dice lo siguiente:
“Aquellos a quienes Jesús hijo de María envió, los discípulos y los que vinieron después de ellos, en la tierra fueron: Pedro el discípulo y Pablo con él, (Pablo pertenecía a los seguidores y no era un discípulo) a Roma. Andrés y Mateo a la tierra de los caníbales; Tomás a la tierra de Babel, que está en la tierra del oriente; Felipe a Cartago y África; Juan a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva; Santiago a Jerusalén, que es Aelia la ciudad del santuario; Bartolomé a Arabia, que es la tierra de Hijaz; Simón a la tierra de los bereberes; Judá, que no era uno de los discípulos, fue puesto en lugar de Judas”.
O considere la Historia de Al Tabari (Volumen IV, página 123):
“Entre los apóstoles, y los seguidores que vinieron después de ellos, fueron el apóstol Pedro y Pablo que era un seguidor y no un apóstol; fueron a Roma. Andrés y Mateo fueron enviados al país cuyo pueblo es caníbal, una tierra de negros, pensamos; Tomás fue enviado a Babilonia en el este, Felipe a Qayrawan (y) Cartago, es decir, África del Norte. Juan fue a Éfeso, la ciudad de los jóvenes de la cueva, y Santiago a Jerusalén, es decir Aelia. Bartolomé fue enviado a Arabia, a saber, el Hijaz; Simeón a la tierra de los bereberes en África. Judas no era entonces un apóstol, así que su lugar fue tomado por Ariobo. Él ocupó el lugar de Judas Iscariote después de que este último había perpetrado su hecho”.
Así, Al-Qurturbi, Al Tabari e Ibn Ishaq todos son llevados a alabar al apóstol Pablo como una consecuencia directa de estos versículos.
Hay varias razones historiográficas independientes para pensar que la enseñanza de Pablo fue aprobada por los discípulos originales de Jesús. Entre ellos se encuentran los siguientes:
Razón 1: Los individuos en la iglesia primitiva, quienes son comúnmente asociados con los apóstoles (Policarpo, Clemente e Ignacio) hablan aprobando sus cartas.
Razón 2: La iglesia primitiva nunca muestra el conocimiento de una disensión fundamental entre Pablo y Pedro sobre asuntos pertinentes a la cristología y la naturaleza de Dios, a pesar de que a menudo lo mencionan junto al apóstol Pedro.
Razón 3: Pablo nos dice en Gálatas 2 que subió a Jerusalén con Bernabé para confirmar que el evangelio que estaba predicando a los gentiles era el mismo que el suyo. Es improbable que haya inventado esta historia para apoyar su propia autoridad apostólica, porque en el mismo capítulo también menciona la disputa que ocurrió entre Pablo y Pedro en cuanto a la circuncisión cuando Pedro vino a Antioquía.
Razón 4: Pablo hace un comentario desinteresado sobre el Apóstol Santiago en Gálatas 1: 18-19:
Después de tres años subí a Jerusalén para visitar a Cefas y permanecí con él quince días, pero no vi a ninguno de los otros apóstoles, excepto a Santiago, hermano del Señor.
Mire el comentario desinteresado de Pablo sobre Santiago. Si Pablo era un verdadero Apóstol inventando historias, no esperaríamos que él mencionara a Santiagp de pasada sin hacer un punto. El hecho de que Pablo simplemente menciona a Santiago en esta manera de hablar, persuade a los historiadores de que Pablo estaba recordando los hechos reales acerca de su asociación con la iglesia primitiva y los Apóstoles.
Razón 5: Pablo escribe en 1 Corintios 15: 9-11,
“Porque yo soy el menor de los apóstoles, indigno de ser llamado apóstol, porque perseguí a la iglesia de Dios, pero por la gracia de Dios soy lo que soy, y su gracia para mí no fue en vano. He trabajado más duro que cualquiera de ellos, aunque no fue por mí, sino por la gracia de Dios que está conmigo. Y si yo o ellos, así predicamos y creíamos”.
Así Pablo parece endosar a los otros apóstoles e incluso llega a decir que se considera menos que el más pequeño de ellos. Pablo parece asumir que los cristianos corintios también creyeron que su mensaje era consistente con los otros apóstoles. Esto sugiere fuertemente que Pablo y los otros apóstoles generalmente acordaron los temas centrales de la fe.
La teología de Pablo estaba radicalmente en desacuerdo con la enseñanza central islámica, ya que Pablo afirmó no sólo la deidad de Cristo, sino también la crucifixión y la resurrección (todas ellas expresamente rechazadas por el Islam).
Para los propósitos de la discusión, apelaré solamente a las obras incontestadas de Pablo, las obras que todos los historiadores cristianos y no cristianos conceden por unanimidad fueron escritas por él.
En Filipenses 2: 5-11, Pablo cita lo que es probablemente un himno cristiano temprano:
“Haya, pues, en vosotros este sentir que hubo también en Cristo Jesús, el cual, siendo en forma de Dios, no estimó el ser igual a Dios como cosa a que aferrarse, sino que se despojó a sí mismo, tomando forma de siervo, hecho semejante a los hombres; y estando en la condición de hombre, se humilló a sí mismo, haciéndose obediente hasta la muerte, y muerte de cruz. Por lo cual Dios también le exaltó hasta lo sumo, y le dio un nombre que es sobre todo nombre, para que en el nombre de Jesús se doble toda rodilla de los que están en los cielos, y en la tierra, y debajo de la tierra; y toda lengua confiese que Jesucristo es el Señor, para gloria de Dios Padre”.
La crucifixión de Jesús ya está en desacuerdo con la teología islámica (ver Sura 4: 157-158). Además, existen al menos tres razones por las que este texto enseña la deidad de Cristo:
Razón 1: Se dice que Cristo estaba “en la forma de Dios” y luego “tomó la forma de un siervo” —él está poniendo a los dos en la misma categoría, ya que utiliza la palabra griega morphé (que significa “forma”), En ambas cláusulas.
Razón 2: El contexto del pasaje nos instruye a emular la humildad de Cristo. Pero no es un acto de humildad por parte de una criatura el no buscar ser como Dios.
Razón 3: Los versículos 10 y 11 se enlazan con Isaías 45:23: “Ante mí [es decir, Yahweh] toda rodilla se doblará, toda lengua jurará lealtad.”
Para dar otro ejemplo, Pablo parece expandirse sobre el shema (de Deuteronomio 6: 4) en 1 Corintios 8: 6, identificando a Jesucristo como el Señor del shema:
Pero para nosotros hay un solo Dios, el Padre, de quien son todas las cosas y por quien nosotros somos, y un solo Señor, Jesucristo, por medio del cual son todas las cosas y por el cual somos.
Esto sugiere, por extensión, que los discípulos de Jesús también afirmaron la deidad de Cristo. También parece improbable que hubieran llegado a una conclusión tan radical si Jesús mismo no se hubiera identificado de esta manera, especialmente dadas (1) las expectativas mesiánicas judías; (2) el concepto judío de Dios; y (3) las connotaciones de crucifixión a un judío.
Para concluir, no hay razón para pensar que los discípulos de Jesús eran musulmanes como el Corán sostiene y en cambio tenemos todas las razones para pensar lo contrario. Esto presenta otro desafío formidable a la religión islámica y da una orden aún más racional para su rechazo.
Traducido por Jairo Izquierdo.
A Quick Case For Jesus’ Resurrection
Jesus ChristBy Evan Minton
I’ve always struggled with brevity some of my apologetic presentations. The trick is to keep it a decent length while simultaneously not skimming on important facts. A handful of my blog posts are kind of long due to my struggle, but fortunately, the vast majority of them are at a length you would want a blog post to be. Given that it’s Easter weekend, I thought I would rewrite one of my articles on the resurrection specifically for the person who wants to get his information quickly. That said, I’ll still leave the longer ones up for those interested in a more in-depth study.
In this blog post, I plan on giving an overview of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Contrary to popular opinion, belief in Jesus’ resurrection isn’t something one has to believe on blind faith alone, one can confirm the resurrection on the basis of powerful historical evidence. The resurrection is important because if Jesus has risen from the dead, then God has put His stamp of approval on everything Jesus said and did. God agrees with Jesus’ ministry. This means that we can put great stock into anything Jesus taught about, such as His claim to be God, the existence of angels and demons, the existence of Heaven and Hell, and that He Himself is the only way to get to Heaven. It gives good reason to believe The Bible is divinely inspired, for Jesus Himself quoted from the Old Testament and taught that it is the word of God, and He commissioned apostles who would go on to write The New Testament. After all, who would be in a better position to know whether or not the Old Testament is divinely inspired than God Himself, and since God chose Matthew, Paul, Peter, etc. it makes sense to think that God put His stamp of approval on their teachings as well. So, if Jesus rose from the dead, that gives good grounds for believing in the inspiration of The Bible and for accepting whatever The Bible teaches.
Historical Method, Not “Using The Bible To Prove The Bible”
I want to make it clear that while I’ll be appealing to The New Testament at certain points in this article, I won’t be “quoting from The Bible to prove The Bible”. No, instead I’ll be applying the historical method to the New Testament documents to determine certain aspects as fact just as I would any other ancient document. Historians apply what is known as “the criterion of authenticity” to secular documents all the time in order to determine whether something is historical or not. That’s what I and many other Christian Apologists do with The New Testament. We apply historical principles like multiple attestation, the principle of embarrassment, the principle of enemy attestation, etc. to the gospels to argue that X, Y, and Z are more likely to be historical than not. And by the way, even non-Christian historians, like Bart Ehrman and Gerd Ludemann, take this approach with The New Testament when trying to gather information about the historical Jesus, and have come to many of the same conclusions that Christian historians have via the same arguments. They are certainly not presupposing The Bible’s divine authority when they argue, for example, that Jesus’ tomb was most likely empty because it would have been embarrassing for the gospel authors to have women as witnesses to the empty tomb.
When I argue for Jesus’ empty tomb, or for the postmortem appearances, I do not quote the New Testament as scripture and declare that since it’s in The Bible, it must be true. Rather, I presuppose that The New Testament documents are purely human documents for the sake of the argument, I apply the same principles or criteria of authenticity to the text, and when one does that one comes up with certain pieces of data which I think can only make sense in light of the hypothesis: God raised Jesus from the dead.
Two Step Process To The Resurrection Inference
In the case for the resurrection, there are two steps.
1: What Are The Facts To Be Explained?
2: What Is The Best Explanation Of The Facts?
Fact 1: Jesus Died By Crucifixion
*Jesus’ death by Roman crucifixion is multiply attested in 7 independent documents. 4 of those sources are secular, 3 of them are from The New Testament.
Secular Sources — Josephus, Tacitus, Mara-Bar Sarapian, Lucian Of Samosata.
NT Sources — The Synoptic Gospels, The Gospel Of John, Paul’s Epistles.
This makes it overwhelmingly more probable that Jesus’ crucifixion is an event of history. It is statistically impossible for 7 independent sources to all make up the same story. Denial of crucifixion’s historicity entails that 7 sources fabricated the same lie independent of each other.
*Jesus’ crucifixion is attested to by sources hostile to Christianity (i.e Tacitus and Lucian).
These sources would have nothing to gain by saying Jesus’ crucifixion really happened if it didn’t. In fact, they are ridiculing Christianity in the very same context of their passages referring to the crucifixion of Jesus.
*Historical Fit makes it plausible that Jesus died by crucifixion.
Secular History attests to the fact that Romans crucified people in the first century. That Jesus was crucified fits well with what we know of first century crucifixions.
Fact 2: The Empty Tomb
*The Jerusalem Factor
If Jesus’ body was not absent from the tomb, the enemies of Christianity could have easily stomped out the movement by removing Jesus’ body from the tomb and showing it to everyone. If they did that, Christianity would have died before it even began. It did not die back then. We can infer from this fact that they did not take Jesus’ body out of the tomb in order to parade it down the street to prove to everyone that the resurrection claims of the disciples were false. Why didn’t they do this? Most likely because Jesus’ body was not even in the tomb to be taken out.
*All four gospels feature women as witnesses to the empty tomb.
Women were considered second class citizens back then and their testimony was considered worthless. The empty tomb narrative is most likely historical because it would have been awkward for the early church to have women as the chief witnesses when their testimony wasn’t considered valid back then. They would have made males the first ones on the scene if they were just conjuring up this narrative. So, by the principle of embarrassment, we know that the tomb of Jesus was empty.
*The enemies of Christianity claimed that the disciples stole the body. This presupposes the empty tomb.
Even though our knowledge of this claim comes from Matthew 28, we can still count this as enemy attestation. Matthew said they were spreading the story “to this day”, which means if Matthew said the pharisees were saying this when they really weren’t, he would be easily found out by those alive “to this day”. Matthew wouldn’t open himself up to such easy falsification. Secondly, people don’t usually respond to accusations unless someone actually made that accusation of them. For example, you wouldn’t deny stealing your friend’s car unless he accused you of stealing it.
Fact 3: Jesus’ Post-Mortem Appearances To The Disciples
*Paul’s List Of Appearances In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Gives Us Powerful Reason To Believe These Appearances Occurred.
Paul’s citing an early creed that he himself received. We know this is a creed because he says “For what I received, I passed onto you as of first importance” This is ancient rabbinic language employed whenever oral tradition was being passed on. Plus, Paul’s word usage in verses 3-8 is foreign to Paul in the rest of his epistles. On top of that, Paralellism (long sentence followed by a short sentence followed by a long sentence again) implies that this is a creed since this structure was common to oral tradition to contribute to easy memorization.
Paul most likely got the creed from Peter and James during his fact-finding mission that he recounts in Galatians 1:18-19, which would mean this creed goes back to eyewitnesses of the resurrection. That this is when Paul received this creed is plausible from the fact that Peter and James are two individuals explicitly named, plus Paul’s use of “historieasi” which indicates they were talking about recent events.
Therefore, the creed goes back to within only a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. This list of appearances is so early that anyone skeptical about them could question the witnesses to see if the creed were accurate. If these people did not see Jesus as the creed claims, then the cat would be out of the bag and Christianity would be discredited. Many scholars have noted that Paul’s mentioning of many of the witnesses still being alive is most likely a challenge from Paul to question these witnesses, as if Paul were essentially saying “Don’t believe me? Go talk to them yourselves! Go ask them yourselves!”
*The Appearance Narratives In The Gospels Provide Multiple, Independent Attestation Of The Appearances.
The appearances to the disciples are mentioned in 3 independent sources.
1: 1 Corinthians 15
2: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
3: The Gospel Of John.
It is highly unlikely that three independent sources would all fabricate the same lie. Given that we have at least three sources for the post-mortem appearances to the disciples, we have good grounds for confirming that the disciples believed they saw the risen Jesus.
Fact 4: The Post-Mortem Appearance To Paul
*Saul Of Tarsus was hired by the Jewish Sanhedrin to persecute Christians by beating them, throwing them into prison, stoning them to death, etc.
The Principle of Embarrassment makes it highly likely that he was indeed a persecutor. People don’t make up horrible things about themselves, and usually, don’t admit them even if they’re true. Yet in 3 different epistles, Paul says that he was a harsh persecutor of Christians before his conversion (see 1 Corinthians 15:9, Galatians 1:13, 1 Timothy 1:13).
Multiple Attestation — Both Paul’s epistles and the book of Acts say that Paul was a persecutor of the church.
*Saul Converted To Christianity all of a sudden and became an active evangelist who suffered for his faith.
Multiple Attestation — Paul attests to his own suffering for the sake of the gospel in his epistles. The book of Acts also records Paul’s suffering.
The early church fathers, Polycarp, Tertullian, Clement of Rome, and several others record the account of Paul’s martyrdom under the emperor Nero.
*Saul — who later became known as Paul — claimed that he went from being a Christian destroyer to being a Christian maker because the risen Jesus appeared to him on the road to Damascus. This is the most reasonable explanation for why he went from being someone who killed Christians to being a Christian himself virtually overnight.
Fact 5: Jesus’ Post Mortem Appearance To James
*Jesus had a brother named James who did not believe He was God incarnate or the messiah during Jesus’ lifetime.
Multiple Attestation — The Gospel Of John (chapter 7) and The Gospel Of Mark (chapter 3) both attest to Jame’s skepticism. Very unlikely that they both fabricated the same lie independent of each other.
The Principle Of Embarrassment — Casts Jesus in a bad light given the stigma back then of any Rabbi whose family opposed his teaching. Casts James in a bad light, particularly in John 7 because in John 7, James and Jesus’ other brothers are trying to goad Him into a death trap by showing himself publicly at a feast when they were well aware that the Jewish authorities were seeking to kill Him. Why would John paint James and Jesus’ other brothers in such a bad light if this is not what actually happened?
*A short time after Jesus’ death, James came to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead
Multiple Attestation — The book of Acts as well as Paul’s letter to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9) reveals that James had become a leader of the church in Jerusalem.
*James was Martyred for his Christian faith
Multiple Attestation — Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement Of Alexandria all record that James were murdered by the Jewish Sanhedrin for his belief in Jesus as the risen Messiah.
*The Most Likely Explanation for why James went from being a skeptic to being a believer virtually overnight is because the risen Jesus appeared to him as 1 Corinthians 15:7 says.
Conclusion
This is the historical evidence for the 5 facts undergirding the inference to the resurrection. The hypothesis “God raised Jesus from the dead” is the best explanation of these 5 facts. It meets all 6 of the standard criteria for confirming a historical theory.
1: It has great explanatory power.
2: It has great explanatory scope.
3: It is plausible.
4: Not ad-hoc.
5: It is in accord with accepted beliefs.
6: It outstrips rival theories in criteria 1-5. None of the naturalistic theories raised over the last 2,000 years to explain these 5 facts are tenable. They all fail.
For a more in-depth treatment, check out chapter 8 of my book “Inference To The One True God”, and the longer article this one is based on, “The Miminal Facts Case For Jesus’ Resurrection PART 1”.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2q4d761
Is the Late First-Century Too Late for Eyewitnesses of Jesus to Have Lived?
Jesus ChristBy Brian Chilton
The more I study the New Testament documents, the more I am convinced that the documents, particularly the Synoptic Gospels, are earlier than expected. Scholars like W. F. Albright and John A. T. Robinson—both who are not necessarily conservative in their approach but respected in their field—date the NT texts much earlier than even most conservative scholars do. Norman Geisler notes,
Even so, most conservative scholars would date the Gospel of John, the Letters of John, and the Apocalypse (i.e., Revelation) to the latter quarter of the first-century. Is this too late for eyewitnesses to have survived? Can we legitimately expect that eyewitnesses of Jesus in the 30s lived into the 80s and 90s? Actually, the answer is a surprising and resounding, yes! New Testament scholar, Craig Blomberg, explains,
Scholars unanimously agree that the New Testament was completed by the end of the first-century. Therefore, even if it is true that a large portion of the New Testament was completed in the late first-century, it is completely possible that a large body of Jesus’s eyewitnesses were still alive to check the veracity of the documents. Consider this: if the apostle John was 20 when Jesus died and resurrected in AD 33, then he would have been a mere 72-years-old in AD 85, the date when most scholars hold that the Fourth Gospel was written. With Blomberg’s research, it is completely feasible to accept that John could have lived to that age. Thus, we have further reasons for accepting the New Testament’s reliability as eyewitnesses could have lived even towards the end of the New Testament’s completion.
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2phFFvE
How Facebook Can Make You a Better Christian Parent
Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Natasha Crain
I’ve finally wrapped up my next book, taken a couple of weeks to recover, and am ready to get back to blogging! I have a lot to tell you about my new book, but it doesn’t come out until October, so I’ll wait a bit to share more about it.
As I worked against my writing deadline in the last few weeks, I spent a lot less time on Facebook. I just had too much to do to check in and engage as regularly as usual. But being away from it has been a good thing because it made me realize something a bit surprising:
Being on Facebook can make you a better Christian parent.
I know that’s not the conclusion of most who take social media breaks. Usually people step back for a while and then conclude their life is better without Facebook or Twitter distractions. And, to be sure, there are aspects of social media that can be tiring and soul-draining. If you’re at the point where you can’t possibly scroll past one more person talking about how blessed they are without wanting to punch your screen, you probably do need a break.
But for Christian parents who want to raise faithful kids in a secular world, Facebook can be an invaluable tool for gaining some much-needed perspective for the job.
The Generational Disconnect
In the last year, I’ve had the opportunity to speak at churches and conferences across the country about the importance of parents teaching kids apologetics, the biggest faith challenges parents should address with their kids (I walk through 5 of the 40 in Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side), practical ideas for teaching apologetics at home, and how to teach kids good critical thinking skills.
In my talks, I use quotes from atheist authors/bloggers, memes and snippets of online conversations with skeptics as examples of claims kids will encounter today. I regularly find that parents are surprised by what I present.
I often ask how many have heard the claim I’m addressing—for example, that the Bible is unreliable because it’s been copied so many times—and only a few hands go up.
Or I ask how many have heard of influential atheists/agnostics like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Bart Ehrman—and even fewer hands go up (if any).
Then, when I talk to parents after an event, a common thread of conversation is that the presentation was eye-opening because they haven’t had their own faith challenged in such ways.
Meanwhile, at least 60 percent of kids raised in Christian homes are walking away from Christianity by their early 20s, due in large part to the intellectual challenges to faith they encountered.
I think’s fair to say there’s an enormous disconnect between what kids and parents are exposed to today.
Being on Facebook is one way that Christian parents can gain better perspective. I say that for three key reasons.
1. Being on Facebook can expose you to views and conversations you may not hear elsewhere.
Last month, I shared an article on my personal Facebook page and simply said, “Here are some interesting statistics.” One Facebook friend—an acquaintance from high school—was so appalled that I held a different view on a hot issue that she commented, “You aren’t worthy of being in my Facebook news feed. Consider yourself unfriended. Goodbye.”
Within seconds, she was no longer in my friend list.
Just because we have different views.
Honestly, there are certain people I’m connected to on Facebook who post things that make me want to scream. But—and I mean this in all seriousness—for the sake of my kids, I don’t unfriend them. These Facebook friends and I couldn’t be more opposite in our worldviews, and that’s a good thing for me to experience.
I need to understand what they’re saying and why they believe what they do.
I need to see the arguments and articles they find compelling.
I need to read how they interact with others.
I need to know what they’re teaching their kids about the world, because those kids are going to be the adult peers of my kids someday.
Those whose online comments bother you most are those you can learn the most from. Don’t be tempted to unfriend them. Chances are, you’re not being challenged in the same ways by people you interact with in person.
And if you don’t have Facebook friends who post things you disagree with, that’s a sure sign you’ve built yourself a worldview silo. It’s time to expand your Facebook connections and start following pages that post things you disagree with.
2. Being on Facebook can give you a better understanding of “street-level” logic.
Parents are often intimidated by the idea of learning about and teaching their kids apologetics (how to make a case for and defend their faith). They think it involves reading a towering pile of academic books that would put a “normal” person into a coma of boredom. But it doesn’t need to be that way.
For intimidated parents, I often share the results of the Fixed Point Foundation’s study of college students who are members of Secular Student Alliances or Freethought Societies. These college groups are the atheist equivalents to Campus Crusade for Christ. They meet to fellowship, encourage each other, and even proselytize. In a nationwide study, researchers found that most of these students had had not chosen their beliefs from neutral positions, but rather in reaction to Christianity. When students were asked to cite key influences in their conversion to atheism—people, books, seminars, etc.—the responses overwhelmingly indicated their loss of faith was due to what they had read in website forums or videos they had watched on YouTube.
Just everyday stuff kids see online.
The kinds of stuff parents can easily see too—then proactively take the time to discuss with their kids—if they’re on social media and are using it effectively.
There’s certainly a time for book learning, but there’s no substitute for seeing the worldview battle firsthand.
3. Being on Facebook can give you a sense of Christian parenting urgency.
The change I noticed most in myself after being away from Facebook for a few weeks was the emotional complacency that started to set in. Of course, I was still intellectually aware of all the faith challenges in the world—after all, I wasn’t on Facebook because I was writing a book about those challenges! But I didn’t feel the everyday sense of urgency that I normally feel when I’m regularly exposed to all that’s out there.
That’s not a good thing.
The more you’re exposed to, the more you realize how important your job is as a Christian parent…and how much you need to do to raise your kids with a deeply rooted faith today.
There are many ways parents can be educated about faith challenges without being on social media, so none of this is to say everyone needs to use it. But I do think Facebook in particular makes it easy to gain some of the perspective that many Christian parents lack. If you’re on Facebook and not seeing a good mix of worldviews in your news feed, try following some of these pages:
And balance it out by following some great Christian apologetics pages that post a wide variety of articles:
———————–
Brian Cox, Souls, & the Large Hadron Collider
Philosophy of ScienceThere are so many great scientists out there. The things they get to discover and explain to the rest of us lay people are always very cool. Every so often, however, a well-known scientist will get a bit of publicity over a controversial comment they make. When theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking’s book, The Grand Design was released, it caused quite a stir in the philosophy community regarding his statement in the book that “philosophy is dead.”
Hawking’s claim that “philosophy is dead” is a self-refuting philosophical statement. He goes on to endorse, ironically enough, a philosophical view called model-dependent realism, gets facts about the history of philosophy wrong, implies a philosophical, metaphysically impossible claim about the universe, and finally states that the law of gravity itself is responsible for the existence of the universe. More recently, Bill Nye the “Science Guy” (a mechanical engineer by trade) gets basic biology wrong, misunderstands the pro-life view, and confuses science statements with philosophical statements in a Big Think video about abortion.
Recently, several online science outlets like LiveScience and ScienceAlert, have published articles referencing a BBC program featuring theoretical physicist Brian Cox and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. I noticed that even well-known theoretical physicist Sean Carroll shared the article by LiveScience on Facebook. The conversation between Cox and Tyson has gotten traction because of a claim that Cox makes about the Large Hadron Collider and ghosts. Here’s the relevant portion of the conversation:
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who was also on the show, pressed Cox to clarify his statement.
Cox replied,
So, per Brian Cox, since ghosts are an “energy source” and the Large Hadron Collider has never detected the energy of ghosts, they must not exist. A perusal of various Facebook posts using the search feature easily demonstrates that many people believe the same argument advanced by Cox extends to belief in the existence of souls. Again, since souls are an energy source and the Large Hadron Collider has never detected the energy of souls, they must not exist either (according to Brian Cox).
Let’s talk for a minute about Christian philosophy and belief in souls. As a Christian, I believe the Bible teaches that the human person is a composite being made of two fundamental realities, one material and the other non-material. This idea is articulated very generally in the Bible, leaving us the conceptual space to explore details of this view through philosophy. In Christian philosophy, we have a technical term for the view that human persons are a body/soul composite. It is called Substance Dualism. This is the view that each person is an embodied soul, a simple, indivisible substance not having any parts. Substance Dualism has been defended rigorously by Christian philosophers like Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford and J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University.
Let’s see how a few philosophers define what they mean by a soul, since this may give us some indication where Brian Cox’s argument may have gone astray. First consider the words of Richard Swinburne:
J.P. Moreland writes:
Baker and Goetz state,
Dean Zimmerman says,
Brandon Rickabaugh states,
I emphasized certain words in the previous quotes to help you figure out what the problem is. According to these Substance Dualist philosophers, the soul is a “non-physical” or “immaterial” entity. An immaterial entity can’t be composed of energy because it is non-physical. It can use energy, but its essential nature does not consist of energy. I love how Brandon Rickabaugh put it, that we are “embodied human persons.” If we are embodied, that means that our essential nature is something other than a physical body. It’s reasonable to say that these five quotes are representative of the substance dualists writing and defending the view in the philosophy community. I would further contend that no category of substance dualism (i.e., Thomist, Cartesian, or Emergentist) believes anything other than that the soul is immaterial.
Physicist Brian Cox assumes that souls are an “energy source,” then constructs his argument upon that assumption. The Large Hadron Collider should have discovered such an energy source by now, but they haven’t, so says Brian Cox. Clearly, the problem here is that his argument doesn’t work because people who believe in souls don’t agree with his assumption. We reject his assumption and so, therefore, his entire argument does not even get off the ground. Brian Cox and the people who find his flawed reasoning convincing are simply mistaken. Cox and company have not attacked the soul; rather, they merely attack a straw man.
Along with the philosophers noted above, Tim Stratton has argued forcefully for the existence of the soul. The Freethinking Argument provides good reason to think the soul exists. That is to say, the view that human persons are composed of a nonphysical component called a soul is still alive and well.
What About God of the Gaps?
2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brent Hardaway
If you present the cosmological or design arguments to skeptics at least a few times, it’s extremely likely that you’ll hear the words “That’s a ‘God of the gaps’ argument.” This objection is rooted in the idea that because a number of things throughout human history have been wrongly attributed to the supernatural activity of God or gods, we can now safely dismiss God as a cause behind anything else we observe. These previous misfires include primitive myths like lightning bolts being signs from Zeus and Thor to the universally admired Isaac Newton positing God as a mechanic to straighten out errant orbits. We later learned that lightning has to do with electrical qualities, while wobbly orbits turned out to be the result of other bodies in orbit around the sun. ¹
So, in the mind of many skeptics, this trumps any theistic argument. Because science has previously found natural causes behind assumed supernatural events, it will do so in the future. “So”, says the skeptic, “you have a gap in knowledge, and you just arbitrarily insert God into the gap.” There are problems with this argument, one being that not all proposed gap fill-ins are equal. As John Lennox discusses here, there are arguments for God’s existence that are based on what we do know, rather than what we don’t.
Indeed, both the cosmological and design arguments rely on the same method of inductive reasoning that the anti-supernatural position relies on. After observing that natural causes have replaced miracles as an explanation for a number of events, the inference is drawn that all events will be explained by natural causes. Likewise, the design argument is based on the observation that complex specified information (such as that found in DNA) has never been shown to originate from anything other than an intelligent mind. The cosmological argument also relies on the same logic, that every time we observe something that comes into existence, there is always a cause behind it.
Well, not exactly. There is one very important difference. The anti-miracle conclusion is not by any means the only obvious or plausible way of interpreting the data. For example, 19th century scholars were often highly skeptical of claims made by ancient historians. However, archaeology has revealed that these historians were correct on a number of doubted claims key. But it would be totally illegitimate to infer that archaeology will vindicate them at every point someday. It just means that they were more reliable than previously thought. Likewise, natural causes to certain events would only show at best that the universe has less supernatural activity than previously believed. The origin of information and the necessity of causality conclusions that belong to their respective theistic arguments also have far more instances of observation, without any reasonable alternative rearing its head.
But in the case of false supernatural claims, there is another alternative that presents itself. To illustrate, let’s ask the question “Does this really tell us more about the universe, or more about humanity?” For example, there are many cases of UFO sightings turning out to involve something more down to earth. Does this tell us anything about what is “out there” in space? No, it tells that humans are curious and prone to believing that aliens do exist. But this has not stopped the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life from being a live area of scientific research. As a total hypothetical, let’s say an alien space craft did land and interact with several people. Once they told others, it is pretty likely that others would start to see moving objects in the sky and jump to unjustified conclusions about them being a sign of alien life. False reports about aliens would be almost certain feature of a universe where they actually have visited earth. False reports could also be a feature of a universe where they don’t exist at all. The existence of false reports doesn’t tell us much by itself. We’d have to decide based on other evidence.
But in the same way, in a universe where God has put a spiritual desire for Himself in the human heart, it is to be expected that some humans would falsely attribute some or even a lot of phenomena to the divine. This is an almost certain feature of what a theistic universe with fallible humans would look like. This by itself doesn’t prove that God exists or acts in the universe, but by itself it also doesn’t point in the opposite direction, either.
One other point is worth mentioning. It wasn’t because of science that people began to disbelieve that Zeus was throwing lightning bolts from the sky. It happened because, unlike paganism, which saw the gods as not being distinct from the creation, Christians saw God as being separate from it. ² There was no need to see a god behind virtually every force of nature.
¹. Wiker, Benjamin. Moral Darwinism, pp. 127-28
². Carroll, Bruce and Shiflett, David. Christianity on Trial. p. 58-59
Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2pQVTMj