Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah?.[1] In a video published this week, provocatively titled “Why Would Paul Willingly Die for His Belief? Another Church Lie!”, Rabbi Singer makes a number of bizarre claims. One such statement is that “the notion that Paul was beheaded by Rome is complete nonsense. It’s an invention of the church, and it’s mentioned nowhere in the Christian Bible.” Singer notes further that “the book of Acts — which is devoted to Paul — ends with Paul being freed from prison.” Singer gives a date for Acts, which he claims is very conservative, of 85 A.D., and remarks at how surprising it is that the author of Acts did not think it worthy of mention that Paul had suffered a violent death at the hands of the emperor Nero.
There is so much wrong with this argument that one barely knows where to begin. First, a date of 85 A.D. for Acts is hardly “very conservative.” Indeed, the most common scholarly view as to the dating of Acts places it between 70 and 85 A.D., with a date in the 60’s A.D. being perhaps the second most popular. Second, the most popular argument for dating Acts to the early 60’s is precisely because Acts ends on a cliffhanger, with Paul being placed under house arrest, and makes no mention of his trial or execution. This, according to many scholars, is strong grounds on which to date Acts prior to Paul’s death. This argument is admittedly not conclusive. For example, Craig Keener (who inclines towards a date in the 80’s) notes,
An argument from the abrupt ending in Acts need not mean that Luke knew no more about Paul, any more than Mark’s abrupt ending (Mark 16:8) means that Mark knew no more about Jesus’s resurrection appearances (cf. 1 Cor 15:5–8). Some ancient writers criticized historians who ended their accounts prematurely, but these very criticisms confirm that the practice was known. No less renowned a historian than Thucydides, who lived to see the conclusion of the twenty-seven-year Peloponnesian War, ends his account of the war five years before its conclusion. Valerius Maximus ends his work abruptly with no genuine conclusion (Val. Max. 9.15.ext. 2). Herodian ends his history suddenly at the accession of Gordian III (Hist. 8.8.8), but he does not leave off at this point simply because he is writing then; what he writes he would not have dared write until after Gordian’s fall. Second Maccabees, though written after 1 Maccabees, both starts and ends at a period earlier than 1 Maccabees (and ends on a happy note); clearly, it did not bring events up to its author’s day. [2]
For this reason, one should be cautious about placing too much weight on this argument, since it is an argument from silence, though I would argue that it is a stronger argument from silence than many of its cousins. Luke spends an entire eight chapters discussing Paul’s legal challenges — and his ending, as it stands, leaves these challenges unresolved. As Jonathan Bernier explains, “Either Acts was completed ca. 62, when the Acts narrative ends with Paul in Rome, or Luke’s aims in these last chapters remain opaque.”[3] There is, furthermore, other evidence that is suggestive of a pre-70 date for Acts. These include the sparing use of the noun Χριστιανόι; the use of μάρτυς in the literal sense of “witness” rather than in the modern sense of “martyr”; the use of “Simon” (Σίμων) for Peter; and the comparatively primitive use of the term ἐκκλησία. Though these arguments are also not entirely conclusive, they do cumulatively point to an earlier rather than a later date. Given that a pre-70 date of Acts is at least plausible (if not probable), Singer’s argument against Paul having died as a martyr collapses. Even if we humor Singer and suppose a date of 85 A.D., however, the plethora of counter-examples cited by Keener above significantly undermine his argument.
Singer claims that “This stuff is all made up. It’s not in the New Testament.” Singer complains that neither Peter’s nor Paul’s death is spoken of in the New Testament. But why should we limit ourselves to the New Testament? The earliest reference to Paul’s martyrdom is Clement of Rome’s epistle to the Corinthian church (known as 1 Clement, composed most likely around 96 A.D.). According to 1 Clement 5, “Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”[4] Ignatius of Antioch, writing at the beginning of the second century, also writes in Ephesians, “Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”[5] Clement also makes reference to the martyrdom of Peter: “Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him,” (1 Clement 5).[6]
Clement and Ignatius were both very probably connected personally with the apostles. Indeed, Irenaeus says of Clement, “This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles,” (Against Heresies 3.3.3).[7] It is quite plausible that the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3 is this same Clement, since Paul was at this time in Rome (where Clement would later become bishop). Ignatius, by virtue of being a companion of Polycarp — who was instructed by the apostles according to Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.4) — was also very plausibly in a position to know of Paul’s fate. Clement and Ignatius are certainly much closer up to the facts than we are today.
Singer is also not quite correct that the New Testament has nothing to say about Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom. In the case of Peter, John 21:18-19 tells us the words of Jesus to Peter following Jesus’ resurrection: “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.)” Given the authorial explanation “This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God” is strongly indicative of martyrdom. If the scholarly consensus is correct (as seems plausible to me) that John’s gospel was composed between 90 and 95 A.D., then it seems likely that the readers of John are intended to recognize this prophecy as having been fulfilled in Peter’s martyrdom. There is another brief reference in 2 Peter 1:14-15: “…since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.” If Peter wrote this letter, it certainly looks like he was in prison awaiting his execution. If one maintains that Peter did not write this epistle, it may nonetheless be viewed as an early testimony to Peter’s martyrdom. Paul also appears to be anticipating his impending martyrdom in 2 Timothy 4:6-8: “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.” I will not reprise here the numerous evidences that the pastoral epistles were composed by Paul, but I take this to be very firmly established (as I discuss in detail here).
Tovia Singer maintains that the claim of Paul and Peter having been martyred is a Roman Catholic tradition and that Protestants are being inconsistent in giving lip service to Sola Scriptura and yet utilizing church tradition when convenient. This, however, is a gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. The reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura asserts that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith. This does not deny that other historical sources may be of historical value in illuminating and clarifying Scripture, or in, as in the present case, supplying additional information about church history.
Singer concludes his video with the most bizarre argument of all. He claims that Christians frequently assert that the persecution and suffering of the Jewish people across the ages demonstrates God’s judgment against them for rejecting Jesus. I have never, in all my twenty-seven years of being a Christian, encountered this argument, nor is it a sound one. Singer charges Christians with employing double standards. He asks, “Why is it that the death and suffering of Christian followers of Jesus demonstrates the truthfulness of the cause, but the death and suffering of Jews at the hands of Christians…demonstrates the wrongfulness of Judaism. I rest my case.” This is to fundamentally misunderstand the argument under review. The argument emphatically is not that the willingness of Christians — even early Christians — to die for their belief proves the veracity of their religion. Rather, it is specifically the willingness to die of those who were purportedly eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection that provides evidence confirming their sincerity — since multi-party conspiracies, when life or liberty are at stake, invariably break down. This in itself would not necessarily justify belief in the resurrection, since the willingness of anyone to die for a belief or cause only demonstrates their probable sincerity. For this reason, such argumentation must be coupled with additional evidence to show that those individuals were not plausibly honestly mistaken in their belief. What makes the comparison to Jewish martyrs disanalogous is that these Christian martyrs were in a unique position to know whether what they were saying is true or not, since they claimed to have been witnesses to the event itself (rather than it being handed down to them through tradition).
It is also worth noting that the argument does not rest particularly upon the contention that the apostles were martyred for their faith per se. Of the original eleven disciples, I am confident in the martyrdom of Peter and James the son of Zebedee, but we know little if anything about what became of the other nine. Outside of the twelve, I am confident about the martyrdom of Paul and James the brother of Jesus. What we can say, however, with tremendous confidence, is that persecution against Christians seems to go back quite early, since the earliest church endured persecution by the Jews first, according to the book of Acts as well as Paul’s own testimony. Paul testifies that he himself persecuted the early Christians, imprisoning them and putting them to death (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phil 3:6). Paul also gives us his own eyewitness testimony of persecution by Jews against himself following his conversion (2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11). The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. What we can therefore say with confidence is that, as William Paley puts it so eloquently, the “apostles passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.”[8] Since this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that the apostles were sincere than on the falsehood of that hypothesis, it may be taken as evidence confirming the sincerity of the apostles in their proclamation to have encountered the risen Christ. This more modest expression of the argument is more defensible than the claim that all of the disciples, save for John the son of Zebedee, died as martyrs, and it is assuredly evidence that favors the contention that the apostles sincerely believed that they had had an encounter with the risen Christ — a premise that is epistemically relevant to the case for Jesus’ resurrection.
In summary, Tovia Singer is very much mistaken in his assessment that the martyrdoms of Peter & Paul is a later church invention, and seems to be ill-acquainted with Christian argument from martyrdom, and what it purports to establish.
References:
[1] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).
[2] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary & 2: Introduction and 1:1–14:28, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012–2013), 385.
[3] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2022), 62.
[4] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.
[5] Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 55.
[6] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.
[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.
[8] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.
Recommended Resources:
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
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/48hAijs
Is Atheism Dead? 3 Scientific Arguments for God They Can’t Explain with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
PodcastWhat are some of the most difficult arguments for atheists or agnostics to answer that support the conclusion that God exists? Dr. Stephen C. Meyer returns to the program to continue his discussion with Frank on his brilliant new film, ‘The Story of Everything‘, coming soon to a theatre near you APRIL 30th-MAY 6th. It focuses on three major scientific arguments that have come up over the past 100 years that reveal a hidden hand behind the creation and sustainability of the universe.
Together, they answer questions like:
Don’t forget, ‘The Story of Everything‘ will only be available in theatres for a limited time! It’s a great conversation starter for believers and skeptics alike, and will be extremely helpful for teenage and college students who often find themselves questioning the meaning of life. Please spread the word and support this amazing film!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
TheStoryofEverything.film in theatres APRIL 30-MAY 6!
Return of the God Hypothesis by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
The Signature in the Cell by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
Darwin’s Doubt by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
Hollywood Progressive review article by Peter McLaren
Wall Street Journal review article by Peter Robinson
Jesus as Clark Kent
3. Are Miracles Possible?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsMy inner geek is going to show for just a second here. I love superhero origin stories. My favorite part of the story is watching them learn who they truly are, struggle with their powers, and choose the responsibility of sacrificial heroism.
Can you imagine Jesus as Clark Kent? Jesus is the ultimate hero, but we really don’t know what his life was like before he was the teacher we know. I really wish we could see those early moments of Jesus’s life. Talk about the origin of the hero of all heroes!
This advent, I’ve been really focusing on Christ’s coming to earth, becoming human, really imagining what that had to be like for Him, to live as a child while being God. We know from Luke 2, that he was recognized as the Christ by Simeon at 8 days old when Mary and Joseph brought him to the temple for the traditional circumcision. During the Feast of Passover, when Jesus was 12, Mary and Joseph found him conversing with the Jewish teachers who were all amazed by his wisdom and understanding.
But precious few verses summarize 30 years of his life. Jesus came to earth as an infant, and lived quietly unknown, unrecognized. He knew His purpose and mission but had to wait for God’s timing. What was he doing all that time? I can’t wait to ask him.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:1 (ESV)
He was GOD and had to still wait for God’s plan, thirty years before it was his time to reveal his true identity.
He was GOD and still had to wait for God’s timing in his Jesus as Clark Kent beginning. #JesusistheReason Share on X
ESV “On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” John 2:1-4 John 2:1-4
He could snap his fingers and heal the sick, think a thought and bring back the dead, but he was hesitant to perform miracles until God’s appointed time for him. But when his mother asked, he answered with his first miracle (John 2:1-12).
The fact that Mary comes to him gives us a glimpse into this Martha Kent and Superman moment. I wonder what signs and miracles he must have done at home in private – perhaps none, but Mary obviously knows who He is, that He came to save the world, but His Father hasn’t instructed him to stop being Clark Kent just yet.
As I watch people living hurt and broken lives, I wonder how Jesus handled hurting people before God called him to start his signs and wonders. Living around broken people, how did He, knowing what He knew, WAIT for God’s appointed time to start teaching, doing miracles and wonders?
Sometimes the minute God gives me a little understanding, I want to rush off and share it with everyone. I wonder how He did it, Jesus as Clark Kent, not revealing His true nature? The Bible doesn’t give us a lot of insight into those early days, but His witness had to be in how he lived. If none of us could ever witness to anyone except through our lives, what would your witness be? Would people see Superman peeking through your Clark Kent exterior?
Jesus came as an infant, had parents, lived as a man, so we could know our God understands, has felt the struggle of being Clark Kent in a world that desperately needs Superman.
And this year, as I picture Jesus as Clark Kent, I’m moved to tears by the humility of not just becoming human, but the lowliest of humans, an infant born in a stable, so that his miracles and wonders could only be attributed to the power of God. He put on the pain of our human bodies, the wounds of a fallen world, and did so just to die an agonizing death, for me, for you.
I wonder if our fascination with superheroes really stems from trying to understand Jesus and his sacrifice beyond understanding. Share on X
I wonder if our fascination with superheroes really stems from trying to understand Jesus. His sacrifice is so beyond understanding, we try to grasp it through fictional characters who pale in comparison, but the analogy really personalizes his birth and life and death for me.
And I’m really thankful for Him in a deeper way every year.
Recommended Resources:
What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek & Zach Turek (Book)
Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).
Jennifer DeFrates is a former English and Social Studies teacher turned homeschool mom and Christian blogger at Heavennotharvard.com and theMamapologist.com. Jennifer is a 2x CIA graduate (the Cross-Examined Instructors Academy) and volunteers with Mama Bear Apologetics. She has a passion for discipleship through apologetics. Her action figure would come with coffee and a stack of books. She is also the reluctant ringleader of a small menagerie in rural Alabama.
Originally Posted at: https://bit.ly/4mab3oU
What is the Story of Everything? with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
PodcastWhere did the universe come from? How did life begin? And is there a purpose behind it all? If you’re looking for the answers to life’s BIGGEST questions, look no further than ‘The Story of Everything‘, coming soon to a theatre near you APRIL 30th-MAY 6th.
Inspired by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer’s most recent book, ‘The Return of the God Hypothesis‘, this film will take you on a cinematic journey through the cosmos, uncovering signs of intentional design—from the laws that govern galaxies to the intricate code of DNA—revealing a consistent signature woven throughout nature and existence itself.
This week, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer joins Frank on the program to discuss some of the many highlights from the film while answering questions like:
Perfect for skeptics, believers, science-nerds, and everyone in between, this is NOT a preachy Christian film! Tell your pastor, friends, and small group, and get your tickets today at TheStoryofEverything.film. Also, stay-tuned for the midweek podcast, where Dr. Meyer returns to do a deep-dive on the fine-tuning argument and recent biological discoveries!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined.org
TheStoryofEverything.film in theatres APRIL 30-MAY 6!
Return of the God Hypothesis by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer
5 Biblical Men Every Boy Should Know
4. Is the NT True?A Twitter post caught my eye a while back from a brother in Christ who was fed up with his church’s take on biblical manhood. Manhood, it was implied, was a burly trinity of plaid, football, and Clint Eastwood. As if the lost 11th commandment was: Thine beard shall be like Jesus, and thou shalt give John the Baptist a run for his money with thine outdoorsman skills!
I know a lot of guys who would have no problem with this definition of manhood. But our guy on Twitter felt out of place, at church and even with his own manly identity.
Mamas, our boys have been fed a line or two about what it means to be a man. Just like our girls (read about women your girls should know here), boys have been handed a superficial view as a way to stand firm against the feminization and vilification of men. Both of which are a huge problem.
But we can’t help them understand true manhood if our go-to move is dressing our little guys up like they’re the Brawny paper towels mascot.
Manhood is more than knowing what a 2-point conversion is. (That’s an evangelistic strategy, right?) And it certainly isn’t lost if they’d rather contribute to the bake sale than go on yet another camping retreat.
True biblical manhood is the act of submitting oneself to God while loving those around us like Christ. No beards required. To get your boy on the right path, let’s look at a few men in the Bible who model what it means to be a man.
Daniel: Men Stand Firm
Our first bearer of biblical manhood would probably have been the most popular. Wealthy, good-looking, and royally well-connected. Honestly, the only thing that Daniel lacked was a town free of political turmoil. When Jerusalem was raided by the Babylonian army, he and his three buddies were handpicked to compete in Nebuchadnezzar’s version of Next Top Servant.
For three years, Israel’s best and brightest went through the most elaborate indoctrination camp the world had ever seen.[1] In the end, none of the forced converts of Israel were more impressive than Daniel and his pals. And they did it all without compromising their faith in God.
If you have a little Daniel running around your house, he’s probably friends with everyone in his class. He also has no problem standing his ground when other kiddos want to get into mischief. While the early years will come easy, he’s headed for a world that looks more like ancient Babylon with every passing moment. And boy does it look tempting!
To help him stand firm like Daniel, equip him by studying theology, apologetics, and philosophy. Each will help him to better know God and recognize the weakness of worldly arguments. If he’s anything like our man Daniel, he’ll learn to resist compromising his faith with firmness and grace (Daniel 1:8-21).
Joseph: Men have Self-Control
If Daniel was Mr. Popularity, then Joseph was the pesky little brother of the group. This daddy’s boy had a tendency to rat out his older brothers and talk about how he was going to be the greatest in the family. A personality trait that earned him a one-way ticket to servanthood in Potiphar’s household.
No, he wasn’t perfect, but what’s impressive about Joseph was his faithfulness to God during the ultimate sensual temptation.
You see, Potiphar’s wife wanted this handsome hunk of man-meat to sleep with her. Joseph could have easily given in, but he wasn’t like most guys. He had a fruit of the spirit that’s integral to biblical manhood: self-control.
If you have a little Joseph in the mix, he might be quick to tattle, especially when his brothers are playing with Legos rather than cleaning their room. But this adorable little nark holds himself to those same strict standards.
A time is coming, however, when those standards will be put to the test. And one skill every boy needs to be a true man is self-control.
Encourage your little Joseph by helping him recognize the beauty and design of things that require self-control (Genesis 39:9). Ask what would happen if people did what brought them pleasure all the time? Then discuss accountability skills you both can implement in your lives to help practice self-control. It isn’t always easy, but the outcome is worth the effort.
Jacob: Men Nurture
If ever there was a guy that seemed to lack the proverbial man card, it was probably Jacob. He was the antithesis of his womb-mate, Esau. Esau hunted, he looked like Chewbacca, and I’m willing to bet his first word was “steak.” Esau was the stereotypical ‘boy,’ and his dad, Isaac, loved him for it.
Jacob, however, wasn’t having any of that. Soft-spoken by nature, he liked cooking with mom rather than field-dressing a deer.[2] And you know what? He was no less a man for it.
Most people (including the church at times) only look at the exterior when it comes to manhood, but God looks at the heart (1 Samuel 16:7). Jacob showed that manhood can be just as gentle and quiet as it is hunting and beards. But we can miss that when we’ve bought into the lie that boys have to be pint-sized Vikings to be worthy of their gender.
If you have a little Jacob in your house, he’s a sweetie. He likes to help mom and can go the entire day without making a mess of himself. But watch out, those adorable smiles might be used to hide some sneaky behavior.
What your boy needs to know is that manhood isn’t measured by how often he shops at Bass Pro Shop. It’s having a heart for the Lord. Part of this is demonstrated in the gentle nurturing of his family. Praise his loving heart while still including him in a range of activities. Remember: even though Jacob was quiet, he wrestled like an Olympian when the situation called for it (Genesis 32:22-32). So don’t underestimate the fierce spirit behind that soft-spoken nature.
Joseph: Men Protect
We don’t have many backstory details of our New Testament Bob Villa, but what we do have is a beautiful example of our next biblical manhood trait: protecting.
Joseph the carpenter was your average tradesman. He was getting ready to start his family when he got some startling news: his betrothed, Mary, was expecting.
Joseph could have had Mary publicly disgraced, but because he was righteous, he protected her by seeking a private divorce.[3] Then God sent Gabriel with some impressive news: Joseph would be the adoptive earthly father to the King of Kings. All at once, everything changed. Joseph stepped up and provided for Jesus as if He were his own. He then left everything behind to flee to Egypt to keep them safe from Herod’s attack.
If you have a Joseph in your house, he doesn’t mind when little ones come over. He’ll get right down and play and even share a snack. Help reinforce the beauty of babies and the importance of the family by nurturing this God-given protective nature (Philippians 2:4, Genesis 2:24, Psalms 82:4).
Society suffers when it hinders a man’s inborn desire to protect. As he gets older, help him protect the most vulnerable by recognizing the faulty logic of modern feminist and pro-choice arguments.[4] This will not only help him understand God’s design for children and family, but it emboldens him to reclaim his voice in a culture that desperately wants him to be silent.
Jason: Men Defend
I’m willing to bet that you had no idea there was a ‘Jason’ in the Bible, but this guy’s story is too exciting to go unnoticed. It also illustrates our last point that goes hand-in-hand with protecting: men defend.
In Act 17, we find Paul and Silas were staying with our man Jason during a preaching pit-stop in Thessalonica. They had spent three days reasoning in the local synagogue that Christ was the Messiah, and the Jews were less than thrilled about their sermon series. So, they gathered up the roughest guys they could find and sent them to capture to apostles.
When they couldn’t find Paul and Silas, these wackadoos dragged Jason into court. But Jason wasn’t going to give up the apostles no matter how much he was threatened. Once Jason was released, he snuck over to where they were hiding and helped smuggle Paul and Silas off to Berea and out of harm’s way.
If you have a Jason in your house, he will defend his pals to the bitter end. Sometimes this can be less righteously motivated and more ‘snitches get stitches’ in nature. Especially when they reach middle school. Trust me on that one.
Being a defender is an important aspect of biblical manhood, but it’s also a skill that needs training for it to be channeled properly. To help them learn the difference between defending the needy and aiding and abetting, read Acts 17:1-10 and discuss what it means to defend one another.
To round out the lesson, hop over to 2 Samuel 12 and read about how Nathan confronts David in his wrongdoing. This two-person combo will help show your boy that accountability is a vital part of being a good defender.
Final Thoughts:
Being a boy mom is an amazing blessing and a cherished responsibility. I pray that these biblical men will inspire your boys to be fearless for God.
References:
[1] The best food, clothes, and teachers that royal money could buy! They even got new names to round out their new Babylonian identity change.
[2] But what Jacob lacked in brawn he more than made up for in brains. He was a natural businessman. His diligence not only earned him great wealth but the love of his life. And his relentless persistence led to a blessing from the Lord.
[3] Some might argue that if he really wanted to protect Mary, he wouldn’t have tried to divorce her at all. Fair point, but this doesn’t take culture into account. Today, being an unwed teen mom gets you a reality show on Lifetime. Back then they were an outcast of society that could have been killed. When Joseph sought a private divorce, he was protecting her from gossip and public disgrace as much as he could. Which kept this a matter within Mary’s family and not the whole town.
[4] Especially the challenge that his views don’t matter because he doesn’t have a uterus. *Hint: If his views don’t matter because he lacks a uterus, then what about the views of the men who passed Roe v. Wade? Shouldn’t theirs’ not matter, too?
Recommended Resources:
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek & Zach Turek (Book)
Amy Davison is a former Air Force veteran turned Mama Bear Apologist. She graduated from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with an MA in Christian Apologetics. She and her husband Michael (also former Air Force) have been married for over 17 years and have 4 kids. Amy is the Mama Bear resident expert on sex and sexuality, and she’s especially hoping to have that listed on her Mama Bear business card.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3O3bV2g
Is the Bible HATE Speech? Plus Q&A
PodcastIs disagreement hate? And what about speaking out against certain sexual behaviors, like LGBTQ? Does that make you a mentally unstable person? A Canadian “hate speech” bill is currently causing concern as critics warn it could chill religious speech and expose some people to prosecution for simply quoting the Bible. Meanwhile, basketball player Jaden Ivey is promptly fired from the Chicago Bulls for stating that Pride Month celebrates “unrighteousness” as other NBA players commit serious felonies (including physically harming others) without serious repercussions. What’s up with that?
Pack your patience during the midweek episode as Frank addresses these and many other questions including:
Later in the program, Frank responds to listener questions related to:
Be sure to tune in later this week when Dr. Stephen C. Meyer joins the program to discuss his fantastic new movie, ‘The Story of Everything‘, coming to a theatre near you on THURS. 4/30!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Canada Hate Bill Could Be ‘Weaponized’ Against People of Faith
Canadian House of Commons Bill C-9
Arguing from the Extremes
1. Does Truth Exist?There is a very common type of fallacious reasoning that I have termed arguing from the extremes. Once you see this, you’ll notice that it’s everywhere in our society and especially political discourse. Roughly speaking it’s the idea that one or an extremely small number of counter examples disproves a whole theory. This is simply not how to do good reasoning. If you see x follow y 1,000 times you will rightly conclude that there is some type of causal link between x and y. If on try 1,001, x does not follow y, that should give you pause, but it shouldn’t prompt you to conclude that your established theory (x follows y) needs to be completely thrown out.[1] That would be stupid. But a lot of people do reason like this.
So, for example, it has been widely demonstrated in social science data that children with both a mother and a father present in the home do better in life. The fallacious example of arguing from the extremes would be to counter that this cannot be true because you know a person raised by both a mother and father who turned out to be a con-artist, and you also know a man raised by a single mother who founded and runs a multi-million-dollar company. This is a fallacious objection because it is treating the theory as if it were a deductive argument. One genuine counter example proves that something is wrong with a deductive argument. Conversely, theories are much more akin to inductive arguments which simply say what is likely to be true, or what is true more often than not. As Nicholas Rescher says, “our acceptance policy is based on considerations of overall best-fit, where the fit at issue is one of consonance and coordination with our prevailing commitments.”[2]
So, if I argue that far more often than not it is better for children to be raised by both a mother and a father, a few counter examples do not in any way undermine that argument. Or the existence of seemingly genuinely intersexed people does not undermine a theory of gender that says that human beings are male or female.[3] Estimates of the number of people who claim to be transgender vary, but seem to fall between a high of 0.7% and a low of 0.39%. Even assuming that all the reported instances of transgenderism are accurate (none of the people involved are confused, lying, suffering from mental problems, etc) which seems very unlikely, that still gives us a more than 99% correlation between biological sex and gender.[4] If the correlation was this high for anything else we would call people insane and stupid for challenging it. And yet this is only the people who make the trans-claim. The number of actually intersexed people is significantly smaller still.[5] Reasonable people can disagree about how big a number would be a genuine challenge, but it certainly needs to be higher than 1%. Nonetheless many people make this fallacious appeal and claim that we need to throw out the traditional and historical understanding of human beings as male or female. An anomaly or error factor of less than 1% does not establish this. This is simply bad reasoning, as Timothy McGrew illustrates with an example from the philosophy of science, “This point tells against a naive form of falsificationism according to which even the slightest mismatch between theory and evidence suffices to overturn a theory. But it is a grave exaggeration to claim, as some social constructivists have done, that the existence of an interpretive dimension to scientific inference undermines the objectivity of science.”[6]
No reasonable and serious thinker would or should attempt to argue that because there are children born with birth defects such as missing limbs that we should then conclude that it is normal, fine, and even good for a person to have missing limbs. Likewise, just because there are some people who are born seemingly genuinely intersexed it does not follow that this is normal or good.
And this type of bad reasoning is everywhere in our society. Someone proposes a new law, system or idea that will help people or address a problem. Opponents do an analysis of it and find out that it will ignore or even hurt a small amount of people. They then claim that the whole thing is a terrible idea because it will hurt a small amount of people. But virtually everything that human societies do will ignore or hurt at least a small amount of people. For example, I use the VA health care system. Reworking the VA likely would cause problems for me and other veterans; however, it might also cause it to run better and more effectively. The balance of problems vs effectiveness is an empirical question that can be answered, but it’s quite likely that even if on balance reworking the VA is a good thing, it will still cause problems for me and other veterans. It doesn’t follow that we shouldn’t do it just because of those problems. Perhaps the good of the reworking outweighs those problems.
People do this all the time with abortion as well wherein they point to very rare and extreme examples to justify their positions. This is done because those examples are so extreme that they invoke emotional responses that cloud judgement and make it harder to see the error. Anti-war protesters often do the same thing. They find an emotionally heartbreaking example of a civilian (usually a child) who was killed in the fighting and start harping on about how the whole war is terrible.
War is terrible, but depending on who is fighting and why, peace might be even worse. Further are the civilians being deliberately targeted? Did the military forces act negligently? Or is the civilian’s death a rare thing and reasonable steps were taken to avoid it? If it’s the latter, this is arguing from an extreme. It’s just naive and stupid reasoning to argue, “some civilians/children died, therefore the war must be abandoned.”
Sometimes, but not always, young earth creationists will do this too. They will point to the rare instances wherein a dating method gave odd, contradictory, or clearly false results and then argue the whole method must be flawed. But this is the same style of bad reasoning as it ignores the numerous other times the method worked.
So, here’s the point. You have a theory or idea that has met a fairly high standard. Say it seems to work 999 out of 1,000 times. Someone doesn’t like your idea and starts harping on and whining about the 1 out of a 1,000 saying, “See this proves it doesn’t work.” No, it doesn’t. Almost nothing humans do works 100% of the time. An error factor of 1 out of 1,000 is astonishingly good. That’s arguing from the extremes and it’s stupid reasoning that’s usually covered up by highly provocative and emotional examples. So, watch out for people doing this and don’t do it yourself.[7]
References:
[1] I know David Hume claimed that that one time over a thousand proved induction doesn’t work. But Hume was wrong and foolish as he contradicted himself regularly and rejecting induction is a standard that even Hume admitted he could not live up to.
[2] Nicholas Rescher, “Philosophy as Rational Systematization,” in “The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology,” eds. Søren Overgaard and Giuseppina D’Oro. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 37.
[3] Here I mean people who have something off with their genetics and/or body such that they display the standard traits of both male and female. It’s quite rare, but it does happen. This is distinct from transpeople who claim to be the other a gender other than what their body manifests.
[4] Ian T Nolan, Christopher J. Kuhner, and Gelani W. Dy. “Demographic and temporal trends in transgender identities and gender confirming surgery,” Translational Andrology and Urology 8, no. 3 (Jun 2019), 184-190. Since this source is from seven years ago it’s possible the number is higher now, but the point still stands.
[5] Editor’s Note: The estimated numbers of intersex conditions can vary widely because there’s some dispute, within the relevant circles, about what conditions should be included as “intersex.” The numbers can also be affected by some blurring between Transgenderism and intersex, as “LGBTQIA+” activists have been known to try to envelope both of those groups for political purposes. Strictly speaking, transgenderism and intersex conditions merit careful distinction from each other. Transgenderism entails some combination cross-gender trans-ideology and trans-practice. That ideology distinguishes gender from biological sex, and interprets gender as a separable, subjective, and fluid social construct. Meanwhile, intersex is a biologically rooted phenomenon referring to a range of physical conditions affecting sex-differences (anatomy, genetics, hormones, neuro-chemistry, etc.). The term “intersex” itself is disputed as conservative and liberal interpreters disagree over what conditions qualify. For example, gynecomastia is extremely common yet labeling it as an “intersex” condition can radically swell the reported numbers of “intersex” conditions, potentially increasing the numbers of any larger-group attempting to claim intersex people as their own (Trans-activists, LGBTQIA+, Sex-positive activists, etc.). In reality, gynecomastic is often a negligible/innocuous conditions where males manifest some breast tissue that’s often unnoticeable. Other disorders affecting “cis-gendered” people can inhibit or exaggerated hormones, and those conditions are often quite treatable except in states that ban “conversation therapy” and uncharitably envelope treatments for intersex conditions. In that way, a “cis-gender” biological female, with suppressed estrogren production because of an intersex condition, might not be able to get critical medical treatment in her home state because her physicians could be sued for performing “gender-conservation” therapy on a trans-male.
[6] Timothy McGrew, “Evidence” in The Routledge Companion to Epistemology, eds. Sven Bernecker and Duncan Pritchard, 58-67, (New York: Routledge, 2011), 63.
[7] Some of this article was taken from essays I’ve presented at both the Evangelical Philosophical Society and the Society for Pentecostal Studies.
Recommended Resources:
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)
Phil Kallberg Host of “The Examined Life” podcast is a proud follower of Christ, Phil Kallberg has an MA in Philosophy from Holy Apostles College and Seminary where he wrote a thesis on the Modal Ontological Argument for God’s existence. He greatly enjoys a good story, follows politics far more than is warranted, and makes use of a PlayStation for breaks from all the work of raising children and doing philosophy. Before studying philosophy Phil spent time in the military, worked several jobs in different fields, and thanks to his love of stories got a bachelor’s degree in English. Phil lives in Missouri with his wife, son and daughter. He may be reached for comment at theexaminedlifewithphil@gmail.com
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4mbENBM
Can You REALLY Follow Jesus and Stay Silent on Politics? with Pastor Josh McPherson
PodcastHas the Church become more political in recent years? Or have politics drifted out of their lane and into the lane of the Church? Pastor Josh McPherson of Grace City Church in Wenatchee, WA, joins Frank to discuss why the Church must restart its God-given responsibility as the voice of morality in a secular culture.
They’ll dive into Josh’s firsthand experiences of advancing the Kingdom through political engagement and why he believes the “evacuation” of Christians from the public square has created a dangerous leadership vacuum that is detrimental not only to people, but to the propagation of the gospel. Tune in as they answer questions like:
For more information on how to navigate the tension between loyalty to God’s Kingdom and our responsibilities as U.S. citizens, be sure to visit Josh’s website, Stronger Man Nation and register for the Freedom Con conference on Father’s Day weekend (June 19-20) as they call Christian men to show up, stand up, and speak up!
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Stronger Man Nation
Freedom Con All-American Father’s Day Weekend
Grace City Church
What is Truth?
1. Does Truth Exist?Most people expect others to tell the truth, and we can witness this expectation in many spheres. In law, truth is taken so seriously that people must be sworn in by raising their right hand and making an oath to tell the truth. In football, referees are accountable for making calls based on the truth. In business, people are expected to be truthful employees. Yet it seems that our society is confused about what truth is. We witness this when we hear statements like, “that can be true for you, but it’s not true for me,” or “that’s just your perspective.” These statements often stump people when they encounter someone with a contradictory view. Let’s clear up the conversation by unpacking what truth is and preparing ourselves to promote truth in our spheres.
Truth Reflects Reality
In our postmodern, or some would say our “post-church”, society, many people claim that truth is a matter of perspective or feelings. The individual might advocate that truth is constructed through individuals, communities, and language. Often, they are living what is called a pragmatic theory of truth, a belief that “it works for them” in their lives. But this belief falls short because it not only leads to relativism, but it is also self-defeating.
Relativism holds that truth is shaped culturally and that objective truth does not exist. This can be true if it is a subjective truth, which is an opinion or preference of an individual. For example, if a person says, “Chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream.” This is true for that subject or individual. These truths are an individual’s preference. But if societies lived by relativism, then objective truth could not exist, and each leader and community would regulate laws according to the ebb and flow of their passions.
Relativism is also self-defeating. Imagine two people who believe two contradictory statements. For example, one claims, “a girl can be a boy,” and one claims, “a girl cannot be a boy.” Can both be true? The pragmatic theory of truth would say, “If it works for you, then it is true.” But both cannot be true; that would be self-defeating. Biologically, a boy cannot ever have a baby because a boy is not born with the biological makeup to have a baby.
Truth is what corresponds to reality. Truth must reflect what is real; it is what matches the way things truly are. If a person were to say, “The Earth is flat.” It would not match the reality of what has been discovered beyond the Earth. People have traveled outside of the Earth to discover that it is an oblate spheroid. Truth is not what works; instead, truth mirrors reality. If someone were to say “George Washington was not the first president,” that would not match reality because records reveal that George Washington was the first president. It is not a personal preference or how we feel, but it is outside of us. Truth reflects reality.
Truth Is Universal [1]
Truth can be true even if others deny it because truth is outside of us. If truth is outside of us, where does it reside? What is the reference point for truth? Many people claim to have the truth. Buddhism says it’s revealed by the Buddha, Islam says it is revealed by Allah, Hinduism says it’s Brahman, and Christianity says it resides in God, Jesus Christ, revealed through the pages of the Bible. These religions contradict one another, so which one is true? C. S. Lewis contended, “There were really only two answers possible: either in Hinduism or Christianity. Whatever you could find elsewhere, you could find better in one of these.”[2] However, Hinduism falls short due to the absence of historical evidence, among other things. Christianity provides the historical evidence to support the reliability of the Bible.
From manuscripts to archaeology, the Bible is affirmed as being reliable. Historical biographies emphasize the importance of truth and historical accuracy, as seen in the book of Luke 1:1-4:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Not only are there historical biographies attesting to the truth in the Bible, but it also claims to bear the truth.
The Bible reveals God’s testimony to mankind of the truth. In reading it, the reader can discover that God is truth. Jesus Christ, who is God in the flesh, came to testify to the truth in John 18:37 and that He, being God in the flesh, is the truth in John 14:6. God is truth, and the Bible is the reference point of truth. The Bible is the reference point that reveals universal truths.
Promoting Truth in Society
People in our culture often make judgments based on what works for them or how they feel rather than on what is true. As Christians, we must be familiar with the truths of the Bible over pragmatism and feelings. If truth were relative and feelings oriented, people would lack a standard of morality. Societies would have no standard for right and wrong. Cultures would be unable to criticize other cultures that practice evil. But there is a standard of truth in the Bible. God has given us truths for all peoples, in all places, for all times.
It is the truths of the Bible that build good societies. People do not like it when others steal from them, nor do they like it when people lie to them.
“God, who is outside us, above us, and beyond us, reveals that lying and stealing are wrong because God is truth, and justice is right because God is just. Hatred is wrong because God is love. Forgiveness is right because God is merciful. Sexual immorality is wrong because God is faithful and pure. These things are right or wrong, not because society or even the church agrees with them or frowns on them, but because they are either contrary to or consistent with the nature and character of God.” [3]
These are the truths that Christians can promote in societies because it is good for all people in all places at all times.
Conclusion
We have learned that truth reflects reality, God is truth, and truth is revealed through the Bible for all of humanity. Universal truths build good societies. They teach us to love our neighbor as ourselves. As Christians, we should promote truth to extinguish evil and be a redemptive force in our world.
Notes
[1]
[2]
[1] Editor’s Note: Truth is “universal” in the sense that it’s true for everyone, i.e., universally. If 2+2=4, then that’s not just “True for you but not for me,” because every instance of 2+2 that has ever occurred anywhere has always equaled 4. The universality of truth also means it’s “outside” of us in the sense that the Pythagorean theorem is true independently of you or me. It is still true even if we disagreed with it, didn’t know about it, misunderstood or even if we genuinely believed we had disproven it.
[2] C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, Signature Classics Edition (London, UK: William Collins, 1955), 273.
[3] Sean McDowell, The Beauty of Intolerance (Uhrichsville, Ohio: Shiloh Run Press, 2016), 188.
Recommended Resources:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Deanna Huff is a wife and mother. She is passionate about teaching others to share and defend their faith, drawing on 25 years of experience in the field. Her publications include The Prophets’ Use of the Shepherd Motif and Its Contribution to Their Presentation of the Character of God, and she has contributed chapters to Why Creationism Still Matters and Strong Faith.
She is also a speaker who has led seminars for the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Ladies Retreat, and the State Evangelism Conference. In addition, she taught high school students for ten years at Christian Heritage Academy, covering subjects such as Bible, Universal History, Apologetics and Philosophy.
Deanna earned a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. She holds a Master of Theology in Apologetics and Worldview from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Oklahoma.
Deanna is an active member of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, where she co-hosted a podcast called The Analysis with Pastor Mark DeMoss. She also co-hosted a podcast with her daughter, Ellie Huff, called but why should i care. She and her husband teach an adult Sunday school class, discipling others in the faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4v2pn6W
NEW EVIDENCE REVEALED: What No One Ever Told You About the Shroud of Turin with Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston
PodcastIs the Shroud of Turin REALLY the burial cloth of Jesus, or the greatest hoax of all time? Why has this ancient artifact continued to puzzle scientists for decades? Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston returns to explain why, after years of research, he’s gone from thinking the shroud was a joke, to traveling around the world as one of its biggest advocates. What changed his mind? Join Frank and Jeremiah as they examine the Shroud’s astonishing forensic details up-close and personal while answering questions like:
If we’re reasonable people who follow the evidence, how much evidence does it take for you to believe that something is real or evidential? It’s time to look at the evidence for the Shroud of Turin and decide for yourself! For more information on this topic, be sure to check out Jeremiah’s new book, ‘The Jesus Discoveries: 10 Historic Finds That Bring Us Face-to-Face with Jesus‘,
If you enjoyed this podcast episode PLEASE HELP US SPREAD THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY BY SUPPORTING OUR MINISTRY USING THE LINK BELOW. 100% of your donation goes to ministry, 0% to buildings!
Resources mentioned during the episode:
Donate to CrossExamined
Body of Proof by Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston
The Jesus Discoveries by Dr. Jeremiah J. Johnston
ChristianThinkers.com
CIA Online
Apply for In-Person CIA
Download Transcript
The Argument from Martyrdom: A Response to Rabbi Tovia Singer
4. Is the NT True?Rabbi Tovia Singer is an orthodox Jewish rabbi and the founder and director of Outreach Judaism. He is widely known for his counter-missionary polemics and his criticism of the New Testament presentation of Jesus as the Hebrew Messiah (see his two volume set, Let’s Get Biblical: Why doesn’t Judaism accept the Christian Messiah?.[1] In a video published this week, provocatively titled “Why Would Paul Willingly Die for His Belief? Another Church Lie!”, Rabbi Singer makes a number of bizarre claims. One such statement is that “the notion that Paul was beheaded by Rome is complete nonsense. It’s an invention of the church, and it’s mentioned nowhere in the Christian Bible.” Singer notes further that “the book of Acts — which is devoted to Paul — ends with Paul being freed from prison.” Singer gives a date for Acts, which he claims is very conservative, of 85 A.D., and remarks at how surprising it is that the author of Acts did not think it worthy of mention that Paul had suffered a violent death at the hands of the emperor Nero.
There is so much wrong with this argument that one barely knows where to begin. First, a date of 85 A.D. for Acts is hardly “very conservative.” Indeed, the most common scholarly view as to the dating of Acts places it between 70 and 85 A.D., with a date in the 60’s A.D. being perhaps the second most popular. Second, the most popular argument for dating Acts to the early 60’s is precisely because Acts ends on a cliffhanger, with Paul being placed under house arrest, and makes no mention of his trial or execution. This, according to many scholars, is strong grounds on which to date Acts prior to Paul’s death. This argument is admittedly not conclusive. For example, Craig Keener (who inclines towards a date in the 80’s) notes,
An argument from the abrupt ending in Acts need not mean that Luke knew no more about Paul, any more than Mark’s abrupt ending (Mark 16:8) means that Mark knew no more about Jesus’s resurrection appearances (cf. 1 Cor 15:5–8). Some ancient writers criticized historians who ended their accounts prematurely, but these very criticisms confirm that the practice was known. No less renowned a historian than Thucydides, who lived to see the conclusion of the twenty-seven-year Peloponnesian War, ends his account of the war five years before its conclusion. Valerius Maximus ends his work abruptly with no genuine conclusion (Val. Max. 9.15.ext. 2). Herodian ends his history suddenly at the accession of Gordian III (Hist. 8.8.8), but he does not leave off at this point simply because he is writing then; what he writes he would not have dared write until after Gordian’s fall. Second Maccabees, though written after 1 Maccabees, both starts and ends at a period earlier than 1 Maccabees (and ends on a happy note); clearly, it did not bring events up to its author’s day. [2]
For this reason, one should be cautious about placing too much weight on this argument, since it is an argument from silence, though I would argue that it is a stronger argument from silence than many of its cousins. Luke spends an entire eight chapters discussing Paul’s legal challenges — and his ending, as it stands, leaves these challenges unresolved. As Jonathan Bernier explains, “Either Acts was completed ca. 62, when the Acts narrative ends with Paul in Rome, or Luke’s aims in these last chapters remain opaque.”[3] There is, furthermore, other evidence that is suggestive of a pre-70 date for Acts. These include the sparing use of the noun Χριστιανόι; the use of μάρτυς in the literal sense of “witness” rather than in the modern sense of “martyr”; the use of “Simon” (Σίμων) for Peter; and the comparatively primitive use of the term ἐκκλησία. Though these arguments are also not entirely conclusive, they do cumulatively point to an earlier rather than a later date. Given that a pre-70 date of Acts is at least plausible (if not probable), Singer’s argument against Paul having died as a martyr collapses. Even if we humor Singer and suppose a date of 85 A.D., however, the plethora of counter-examples cited by Keener above significantly undermine his argument.
Singer claims that “This stuff is all made up. It’s not in the New Testament.” Singer complains that neither Peter’s nor Paul’s death is spoken of in the New Testament. But why should we limit ourselves to the New Testament? The earliest reference to Paul’s martyrdom is Clement of Rome’s epistle to the Corinthian church (known as 1 Clement, composed most likely around 96 A.D.). According to 1 Clement 5, “Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.”[4] Ignatius of Antioch, writing at the beginning of the second century, also writes in Ephesians, “Ye are initiated into the mysteries of the Gospel with Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy, at whose feet may I be found, when I shall attain to God; who in all his Epistles makes mention of you in Christ Jesus.”[5] Clement also makes reference to the martyrdom of Peter: “Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him,” (1 Clement 5).[6]
Clement and Ignatius were both very probably connected personally with the apostles. Indeed, Irenaeus says of Clement, “This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles,” (Against Heresies 3.3.3).[7] It is quite plausible that the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3 is this same Clement, since Paul was at this time in Rome (where Clement would later become bishop). Ignatius, by virtue of being a companion of Polycarp — who was instructed by the apostles according to Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.3.4) — was also very plausibly in a position to know of Paul’s fate. Clement and Ignatius are certainly much closer up to the facts than we are today.
Singer is also not quite correct that the New Testament has nothing to say about Peter’s and Paul’s martyrdom. In the case of Peter, John 21:18-19 tells us the words of Jesus to Peter following Jesus’ resurrection: “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.)” Given the authorial explanation “This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God” is strongly indicative of martyrdom. If the scholarly consensus is correct (as seems plausible to me) that John’s gospel was composed between 90 and 95 A.D., then it seems likely that the readers of John are intended to recognize this prophecy as having been fulfilled in Peter’s martyrdom. There is another brief reference in 2 Peter 1:14-15: “…since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.” If Peter wrote this letter, it certainly looks like he was in prison awaiting his execution. If one maintains that Peter did not write this epistle, it may nonetheless be viewed as an early testimony to Peter’s martyrdom. Paul also appears to be anticipating his impending martyrdom in 2 Timothy 4:6-8: “For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing.” I will not reprise here the numerous evidences that the pastoral epistles were composed by Paul, but I take this to be very firmly established (as I discuss in detail here).
Tovia Singer maintains that the claim of Paul and Peter having been martyred is a Roman Catholic tradition and that Protestants are being inconsistent in giving lip service to Sola Scriptura and yet utilizing church tradition when convenient. This, however, is a gross misunderstanding of Sola Scriptura. The reformed doctrine of Sola Scriptura asserts that the Scriptures are the sole rule of faith. This does not deny that other historical sources may be of historical value in illuminating and clarifying Scripture, or in, as in the present case, supplying additional information about church history.
Singer concludes his video with the most bizarre argument of all. He claims that Christians frequently assert that the persecution and suffering of the Jewish people across the ages demonstrates God’s judgment against them for rejecting Jesus. I have never, in all my twenty-seven years of being a Christian, encountered this argument, nor is it a sound one. Singer charges Christians with employing double standards. He asks, “Why is it that the death and suffering of Christian followers of Jesus demonstrates the truthfulness of the cause, but the death and suffering of Jews at the hands of Christians…demonstrates the wrongfulness of Judaism. I rest my case.” This is to fundamentally misunderstand the argument under review. The argument emphatically is not that the willingness of Christians — even early Christians — to die for their belief proves the veracity of their religion. Rather, it is specifically the willingness to die of those who were purportedly eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection that provides evidence confirming their sincerity — since multi-party conspiracies, when life or liberty are at stake, invariably break down. This in itself would not necessarily justify belief in the resurrection, since the willingness of anyone to die for a belief or cause only demonstrates their probable sincerity. For this reason, such argumentation must be coupled with additional evidence to show that those individuals were not plausibly honestly mistaken in their belief. What makes the comparison to Jewish martyrs disanalogous is that these Christian martyrs were in a unique position to know whether what they were saying is true or not, since they claimed to have been witnesses to the event itself (rather than it being handed down to them through tradition).
It is also worth noting that the argument does not rest particularly upon the contention that the apostles were martyred for their faith per se. Of the original eleven disciples, I am confident in the martyrdom of Peter and James the son of Zebedee, but we know little if anything about what became of the other nine. Outside of the twelve, I am confident about the martyrdom of Paul and James the brother of Jesus. What we can say, however, with tremendous confidence, is that persecution against Christians seems to go back quite early, since the earliest church endured persecution by the Jews first, according to the book of Acts as well as Paul’s own testimony. Paul testifies that he himself persecuted the early Christians, imprisoning them and putting them to death (1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:23; Phil 3:6). Paul also gives us his own eyewitness testimony of persecution by Jews against himself following his conversion (2 Cor 11:16-33; 2 Tim 3:10-11). The book of Acts itself speaks of the intense persecution endured by the early Christians, including the martyrdom of James the son of Zebedee (Acts 12:2), the imprisonment of Peter (Acts 12:3-5), the beating of Peter and John (Acts 5:40), and the many sufferings of the apostle Paul for the name of Christ. What we can therefore say with confidence is that, as William Paley puts it so eloquently, the “apostles passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.”[8] Since this fact is more probable on the hypothesis that the apostles were sincere than on the falsehood of that hypothesis, it may be taken as evidence confirming the sincerity of the apostles in their proclamation to have encountered the risen Christ. This more modest expression of the argument is more defensible than the claim that all of the disciples, save for John the son of Zebedee, died as martyrs, and it is assuredly evidence that favors the contention that the apostles sincerely believed that they had had an encounter with the risen Christ — a premise that is epistemically relevant to the case for Jesus’ resurrection.
In summary, Tovia Singer is very much mistaken in his assessment that the martyrdoms of Peter & Paul is a later church invention, and seems to be ill-acquainted with Christian argument from martyrdom, and what it purports to establish.
References:
[1] Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical! Why Doesn’t Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah? Volume 1 (RMBN Publishers, 2014).
[2] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary & 2: Introduction and 1:1–14:28, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012–2013), 385.
[3] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2022), 62.
[4] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.
[5] Ignatius of Antioch, “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 55.
[6] Clement of Rome, “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 6.
[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 416.
[8] William Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity: Volume 1, Reissue Edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 15.
Recommended Resources:
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
The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Masters’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America, and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective, and evidence-based Christian faith.
Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/48hAijs