On the Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear

A correspondent recently asked me about the evolution of the mammalian middle ear in relation to the fossil record. Based on data gathered from embryology, it is widely thought that the bones of the mammalian middle ear (the region just inside the eardrum) evolved from bones of the reptilian lower jaw joint. Besides the paleontological data, this hypothesis is based on the fact that, in mammals, Meckel’s cartilage plays a role in forming the middle ear bones and mandible before subsequently disappearing. In reptiles, it ossifies to become part of the jaw.

Click here to continue reading>>>

/by

An Incontrovertible Case of Intelligent Design: Artificial Jellyfish Made from Silicone and Rat Heart Muscle

The popular science media are abuzz over the creation by scientists of a synthetic jellyfish, called a medusoid, using silicone and a rat’s heart muscle cells (Nawroth et al., 2012). Explains Nature News, “When placed in an electric field, it pulses and swims exactly like its living counterpart.”

The authors of the study examined the tissue layout and dynamics of motion of the common moon jelly (Aurelia aurita) and created a jellyfish-like frame using a silicone polymer, on which they grew a layer of rat heart muscle.

Click here to continue reading>>>

/by

The Moral Argument for the Existence of God

,

The moral argument for the existence of God refers to the claim that God is needed to provide a coherent ontological foundation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The argument can be summarised in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.

Since this is a logically valid syllogism, the atheist, in order to maintain his non-belief in God, must reject at least one of the two Premises. By “objective” morality we mean a system of ethics which universally pertains irrespective of the opinions or tastes of human persons: for example, the Holocaust was morally wrong irrespective of what Hitler and the Nazis believed about it, and it would have remained morally wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and compelled everyone into compliance with their values. This view, known in philosophy as “moral realism,” contrasts with “moral relativism” which maintains that no-one is objectively correct or incorrect with respect to their moral values and judgments.

Most people want to uphold premise 2 of the moral argument. After all, if there are no objective ethics, then who is to say that Hitler was objectively morally wrong? Humans have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. The moral argument requires only that at least some actions are objectively right or wrong (e.g. torturing children for pleasure is objectively morally wrong). Premise 1 relates to the perfect standard against which everything else is measured. God, being the only morally perfect being, is the standard against which all other things are judged. Moreover, in the absence of theism, nobody has been able to conceive of a defensible grounding for moral values.

Moral Argument – An Important Distinction

It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not ‘what we mean’ by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God.

Those who are divine command theorists maintain that moral duties are based on what God commands. Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it this way:

    “Duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random person were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.”

Moral Argument – Euthyphro’s Dilemma

Plato, in his dialogue Euthyphro, presents a fictional dialogue between his philosophical mentor, Socrates, and a character by the name of Euthyphro. Euthyphro explains to Socrates that he has come to lay manslaughter charges against his father, because of his involvement in the death of a worker. This worker himself had killed a slave who had belonged to the family estate. This worker was found dead, gagged, and bound in a ditch. This gives rise to a lengthy dialogue between Euthyphro and Socrates, which eventually leads to the famous “Euthyphro’s Dilemma.” Socrates says, “But I will amend the definition so far as to say that what all the gods hate is impious, and what they love pious or holy, and what some of them love and others hate is both or neither. Shall this be our definition of piety and impiety?” Euthyphro goes on to say “Yes, I should say that what all the gods love is pious and holy, and the opposite which they all hate, impious.” Socrates subsequently inquires of him, “The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods.”

The question is posed this way: Is x the right thing to do because God commands it, or does God command it because it is already the right thing to do? I take the former option. Normally, the problem with accepting the horn is that there is a presumption that the commands in question from God are arbitrary (i.e. God could have commanded that we ought to lie). But that’s just false. The theist wants to say that God is essentially loving, honest etc., and therefore, in all worlds at which God exists, his commands are going to be consistent with his nature. And therefore, in all worlds, he will disapprove of lying.

Moral Argument – The Shortcomings of Utilitarianism

There are various nontheistic systems of ethics, none of which succeed in providing a robust ontological foundation or objective moral values and duties. One of these systems, popularised recently by Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape, is called utilitarianism, and (in its most common formulation) refers to the view that ethics are determined by what constitutes the greatest happiness for the greatest number. One difficulty lies in the fact that it attempts to balance two different scales employed to assess the moral virtue of an action (i.e. the amount of utility produced and the number of people affected). This can often lead to conflicting answers—in some cases an activity might be considered better for a greater number of individuals whereas a different activity might create a greater overall utility. Utilitarians try to maximize with their actions the utility of the long-term consequences of those actions. However, short of possession of omniscience, it is impossible to evaluate the respective long-term results of different activities. Utilitarianism also does not take into account the individual’s intent—Activity X could be done sincerely by an individual who believes that what he is doing will create the maximum utility. But if activity X turns out in the long-term not to produce the desired utility, then his action, under the philosophy of utilitarianism, would be considered less moral than an activity that created more utility.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the moral argument is a robust argument for the existence of God. It is important to distinguish between moral ontology and epistemology when engaging in this debate since these categories are frequently conflated by atheist critics. Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.

This article was originally published on AllAboutPhilosophy.org.

/by

The End of Moral Relativism: A Chain of Perverts

If you are not familiar with the name Alfred Kinsey, you might want to look him up, and you might want to start with Judith Reisman‘s, Sexual Sabotage: How One Mad Scientist Unleashed a Plague of Corruption and Contagion on America. In it, Reisman chronicles Kinsey’s recognition as the America’s expert on “sex education” whose studies have influenced our cultural institutions since 1948 when his book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, along with his 1953 follow-up, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female hit the higher education marketplace. In these books Kinsey pronounced untold “facts” about human sexuality that many in the culture and education have used as the standard by which the topic is addressed in academia to this day.

Here’s the problem. Kinsey’s studies were conducted on test cases made up of:

“… draft dodgers, violent felons, homosexuals and other aberrants … By 1946 Kinsey added ‘1400 convicted sex offenders in penal institutions,’ ‘two hundred sexual psychopath patients’ and well over 600 sexually abused boys. In sum, 86% of deviant ‘subjects’ [were used to define] the Libido of The Greatest Generation … [As for women], Kinsey selected — and paid — prostitutes to represent American womanhood. He loosely defined a ‘wife’ as someone who had lived ‘at least a year’ with a man.”*

And what about Kinsey himself? In perversions that are unrepeatable here, Kinsey began “sexual experimentation” at age 7 in the basement of his Hoboken, New Jersey home. I’ll spare the details but suffice it to say that by the time he conducted the studies that became his books, Kinsey had assembled a staff where “everyone was a bisexual, homosexual, pedophile, pederast, or just wholly amoral … [and whose studies involved] 214 children ranging in age from 1 to 14 years.”**

That’s not a typo. Age ONE to FOURTEEN. And, yes, that means that Kinsey’s “research” involved a staff who arranged and observed “sex play” in children age 4 to 15. As Reisman puts it, “Kinsey fed America a pack of lies, starting with his claim that sexual behavior widely accepted as wrong was, in fact, commonplace. From there, he pushed the lie that such behavior was normal, and finally, he advanced the lie that it was good, healthy, and to be encouraged. Thus, by degrees, Kinsey and his minions turned America’s moral compass upside down …”***

On Kinsey’s cue, Hugh Hefner began to mainstream pornography. But what is worse, Hefner and other Kinsey disciples founded the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). If that acronym sounds familiar it is because SIECUS is the foremost provider of sex education in American public schools.

So what am I getting at?

Well, in 1972, a man named Graham Spanier endorsed Kinsey’s research to the Midwest Sociological Society and, in 1976, under a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Development, he also validated Kinsey’s data on “childhood sex play” for similar “scholars.” In 2002, Spanier also approved Pat Califia, a “transgendered advocate of sado-masochism and pedophilia” as the keynote speaker for a women’s health conference at his place of employment. The year before he allowed the group, Womyn’s Concerns to hold a “Sex Faire” at the same location which featured activities like “orgasm bingo” and “the tent of consent.” When asked if the “fair” was morally wrong, Spanier replied, “It depends on what your definition of immoral is.”****

That location was a college campus. Spanier was the President of Penn State University — the leader of the gang of cowards who knew about, covered for, and lied about the activities the child rapist, Jerry Sandusky.

There has been a lot written about the disgusting story of the Penn State football program. One of my favorites comes from Rick Reilly’s self-confessed failure to not see the hagiography that was going on at PSU for so many years that allowed such a thing to occur. Many have commented on the deceit and perversion, but I haven’t seen any attempt to expose the chain of perverts that leads from Kinsey to Spanier to Sandusky. Nor have I seen anyone try to explain why someone like Joe Paterno, who had no apparent tolerance for the despicable actions of his defensive coach, would be willing to stay quiet about it. I believe this goes beyond his being embarrassed for, and trying to protect, the school or his football program. At its core, this is one of the many fruits of moral relativism — the unwillingness to acknowledge that something is objectively wrong in and of itself.

In 1993, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put forward the thesis that:

“…over the past generation, the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can ‘afford to recognize’ and that, accordingly, we have been redefining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the ‘normal’ level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard. This redefining has evoked fierce resistance from defenders of ‘old’ standards, and accounts for much of the present ‘cultural war’ …

The American Scholar, (Winter 1993)

Our culture has surely been “defining deviancy down” for quite some time. We are willing to “exempt conduct previously stigmatized” because it has become more unacceptable to be thought an arrogant or oppressive defender of objective moral truth, than it has to become complicit in the rape of little boys.
_______________

* Marcia Segelstein, “Lie Charts,” Salvo (Autumn 2011, p. 36)

** Ibid, 40-41.

*** Ibid, 36.

**** Judith Reisman, “It’s Academic,” Salvo (Spring 2012, p. 40-41)

Enhanced by Zemanta

/by

When Was John's Gospel Written?

A number of significant events occurred in the life of the church in the decade of the A.D. 60’s. Among them was the great fire of Rome which broke out in A.D. 64, resulting in Nero cracking down on Christians, thus greatly exacerbating the perseuction of the early church. This intense persecution would would last centuries, before finally coming to a close with the edict of Milan in A.D. 313.

Regarding the great fire of Rome, Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, in his Annals, recounts that rumours arose that the fire was the result of an order from the Emperor Nero himself. Tacitus writes that Nero consequently “fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.” Indeed, many of the early followers and disciples of Jesus were martyred as a result of this crack-down. Even as early as the late first century, Clement of Rome writes of the martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul, saying (1 Clement 5),

“Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, 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.”

The second major event was the war of the Jews from A.D. 66 to 70, culminating in the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by the army of the future Roman emperor, Titus. Famously, the city of Jerusalem was sacked and the building of the second temple was completely raised to the ground.

What is surprising about the New Testament is that there is no indication that any of these major events had taken place at the time of their writing. It seems reasonable to suppose that, had the gospels or Acts been written after those events had taken place, there would be some indication. Indeed, the book of Acts ends with a cliffhanger whereby the apostle Paul is placed under house arrest. The persecution under Nero, and Paul’s death in the mid to late 60’s is not mentioned.

I have argued previously that the omission of these events from the book of Acts in particular suggests that Acts was written in the early 60’s and that Luke’s gospel precedes this date. But what if there was internal indication to suggest that the temple was still standing at the time the gospel narratives were penned?

It is generally thought among contemporary scholars that John’s gospel was the last to be written, and that John likely wrote it at the close of the first century, possibly in the 90’s AD. But is it possible that John wrote his gospel prior to this time? Take a look at John 5:2:

“Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades.”

These collonades, along with the rest of the temple, were destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Could this suggest that John’s gospel was written considerably earlier than is often taken for granted? Something to ponder…

/by

Science and Human Origins: A Review

ENV editor David Klinghoffer has already drawn our attention to the new book by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe and Casey Luskin on Science and Human Origins.Although intelligent design is not committed to a particular view on whether our species Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with other primates, the new book, published by Discovery Institute Press and aimed at the popular level, offers a thoughtful and timely evaluation of the scientific evidence bearing on the question of human origins.

Click here to continue reading>>>

/by

The Nativity Defended

The Nativity and, in particular, the virgin birth has increasingly come under attack from liberal scholarship in recent years. Those committed to a naturalistic worldview dismiss the virgin birth of Jesus as fanciful. Some have even questioned whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem and whether Mary and Joseph’s venture to this town was prompted by the Roman census as recorded by Luke.

Does Luke Get the Date of the Nativity Right?

One argument that is often brought to bear in discussions of the Nativity relates to the apparent discrepancy between Matthew and Luke’s narration and what we know from other sources. Matthew’s gospel tells us that Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod. Luke recounts the story, with which we are all familiar, of Mary and Joseph travelling to Bethlehem to register as part of the census which was taken. The skeptic typically objects upon reading those accounts and complains that these two things are actually a decade removed from each other. According to Luke, Jesus was born at the time of the census when Quirinius was governor of Syria — a census which was recorded by the Romans as occurring in 6 A.D. But Herod’s death — whom Matthew asserts was alive at the time of Jesus’ birth — occurred in 4 B.C.According to Luke 2:1-3,

1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register.

Moreover, the skeptic argues, we know that the first census of the entire Roman empire was ordered by the emperor Vaspasian in A.D. 74, well after the events reported by Luke.

But just how sound are these objections?

The first thing to take notice of is Luke’s remarkable accuracy as an historian in other areas. He gets many titles of rulers correct (in one case he got the title of an Asian leader right which Cicero gets wrong), has cities in the right place, in addition to various other incidental historical details. In light of this, it would be unwise to immediately jump to the conclusion that Luke is historically in error at this point. Before we reach that conclusion, we should first look to see whether there are any plausible alternatives which are not strained or ad hoc.

Second, the linguistic data of the last few decades indicate that Luke 2:2 can be translated, “This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria.” In fact, if you turn to this verse in your Bible you will likely see a footnote indicating that this is so.

Third, as has been suggested by some, it is possible that Quirinius reigned twice. In 1764, a Latin inscription (the Lapis Tiburtinus) was discovered which recorded the career of a distinguished Roman officer. Unfortunately, the inscription is mutiliated such that the name of the individual concerned is missing. But some have interpreted the surviving details as descriptive of Quirinius. It states that when he became imperial legate of Syria, he entered upon that office “for the second time”. Another view is that this Latin inscription actually refers to Quintillius Varus, who was the governor of Syria at two separate times, reigning from 6 to 4 B.C. and again from 2 B.C. to 1 A.D. Between 4 and 2 B.C. reigned Sentius Saturninus. It is interesting that Tertullian (Against Marcion 4:7), in the third century A.D., notes that the imperial records show the occurrence of censuses in Judea during the reign of Sentius Saturninus. It is also noteworthy that, in the second century A.D., Justin Martyr (Apology 1:34) states that Quirinius was only a procurator of the province. Thus, some have argued, Quirinius was only an assistant to the governor Saturninus.

In light of these plausible resolutions to Luke’s account of the census which, on first brush, appears paradoxical, it seems that the evidence would compel us to give Luke the benefit of the doubt on this issue, particularly when considered in the context of his exceptional historical accuracy on other matters.

Regarding the date of the census of the Roman empire, we know from historical sources that Augustus ordered the census to be taken every twelve years, and we have records of those taking place in 8 B.C. and 6 A.D. Some have argued that, if we assume that it probably took two or three years for a census to be completed, then it is not inconceivable that the census Luke has in mind was the one ordered in 8 B.C.. Herod died in 4 B.C., and so Jesus’ birth probably took place in 6 or 5 B.C. or thereabouts. The problem with this argument is that this census only affected Roman citizens, not Jews of Nazareth. It seems unlikely therefore that this is the census that Luke has in mind.

Luke 2 actually doesn’t state that the census was taken of the entire Roman empire. Some modern translations (e.g. the NIV) say that the census was taken of the “entire Roman world”. But the word “Roman” does not appear in the Greek. What this verse actually says is that the whole land was to be registered. This same phrase is used by Luke in Acts 11:28 when he states, “One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire world.” But this clearly refers to the land of Judea. Was the census recorded in Luke 2 restricted to the land of Judea? There would seem to be one problem with this suggestion — the consus is apparently ordered by Caesar Augustus, but surely a census of the land of Judea would be ordered by King Herod the Great. What’s interesting in this regard is that, according to Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 16.9.3), Herod fell out with Augustus a few years before Herod’s death in 4 B.C. over Herod having taken an army into Arabia. When the report of Herod’s actions reached Caesar, Josephus reports that,

“Caesar was provoked when this was said, and asked no more than one question, both of Herod’s friends that were there, and of his own friends, who were come from Syria, Whether Herod had led an army thither? And when they were forced to confess so much, Caesar, without staying to hear for what reason he did it, and how it was done, grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he had used him as his friend, he should now use him as his subject.”

Herod was demoted from rex socius to rex amicus and thereby lost the authority to conduct taxing. Indeed, Antiquities 17.2.4 tells us that citizens of Herod’s domain were required to swear an oatch of allegiance to Caesar. This accounts for why a census in Judea would be ordered by Caesar Augustus rather than Herod.

Why Doesn’t Josephus Mention the Slaughter of the Infants?

Another point which is frequently made relates to the fact that Josephus never mentions the alleged slaughter of the Bethlehem infants, despite the fact that Josephus frequently records Herod’s misdemeanors. It is argued that, if this incident had taken place, surely Josephus and other historians of the day would not have missed it. This objection loses much of its potency, however, when you consider that the town of Bethlehem was actually very small and peripheral. The tally of slaughtered infants was probably half-a-dozen to a dozen.

But are there any positive circumstantial lines of evidence for the historicity of the Nativity accounts? I submit that there are a few. Let’s briefly examine them.

Matthew’s mention of Archelaus

In Matthew 2:22, we are told:

But when [Joseph] heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Then after being warned by God in an dream, he left for the regions of Galilee…

This is a classic example of an external undesigned coincidence. The narrative raises the natural question ‘why is Joseph afraid to go to Judea when he learns that Archelaus in reigning there?’ The answer is given by the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.

Josephus’ Antiquities 17.3.1 tells us that the domain of Herod the Great was divided among his sons, with Archelaus having authority in Judea but not in Galilee, which was governed by his younger brother, Herod Antipas.

We also know that Archelaus had acquired quite a bloody reputation (e.g. Antiquities 17.13.1-2 and 17.9.3). The latter of these references describes how Archelaus slaughtered 3,000 Jews at Passover. Following a riot of the Jews upon the soldiers, Josephus reports,

“Now Archelaus thought there was no way to preserve the entire government but by cutting off those who made this attempt upon it; so he sent out the whole army upon them, and sent the horsemen to prevent those that had their tents without the temple from assisting those that were within the temple, and to kill such as ran away from the footmen when they thought themselves out of danger; which horsemen slew three thousand men, while the rest went to the neighbouring mountains. Then did Archelaus order proclamation to be made to them all, that they should retire to their own homes; so they went away and left the festival out of fear of somewhat worse which would follow, although they had been so bold by reason of their want of instruction.”

Thus, Joseph decides not to return to Judea and, instead, goes further north to the regions of Galilee, governed by Herod Antipas.

The Virgin Birth and the Criterion of Embarassment

The virgin birth fulfils the historical criterion of embarassment. According to Jewish law, the penalty for being found pregnant outside of marital union was death by stoning. In addition, Joseph, her fiancé, also had reason to be afraid because he would be suspected as the culprit. Furthermore, if Joseph were to marry his fiancé, it would be seen as an admission on his part that he was responsible for the pregnancy. It thus seems unlikely that the virgin birth is an invention. Indeed, there is no evidence that Isaiah 7:14 (which is cited in Matthew 1:23) was interpreted as a Messianic prophecy prior to Christ: Thus it is unlikely that this detail was manufactured due to theological motivations.

The Nativity Accounts in Matthew and Luke Are Independent

The nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke are strikingly different. The account in Matthew relays the incident of the wise men coming to Herod in Jerusalem, Herod ordering the massacre of Bethlehem infants, the escape to Egypt etc; whereas the account in Luke highlights the Roman census that was ordered by Caesar Augustus. This suggests that Matthew and Luke are independent at this point.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while the virginal conception of Jesus may not enjoy a comparably large body of support to that which the resurrection enjoys, there are nonetheless plausible historical reasons for taking the virgin birth seriously. While the one who is committed to a naturalistic worldview will never be content with any level of evidence to the contrary, the evidence discussed here adds one further argument to the cumulative consilience of evidence which points to the general historical reliability of the gospel accounts and the credibility of the Christian worldview.

/by
What Really Happened at Nicea?

What Really Happened at Nicea?

For many years, the council of Nicea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicea have, in part, been fuelled by popular fiction novels such as Dan Brown’s notorious The Da Vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah’s witnesses, and Unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconceptions. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

The council of Nicea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine. What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to the common misconception (popularised particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the council of Nicea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture — that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicea, at the encouraging of Constantine, “invented” the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

The bishops who met at Nicea had just come out of an extremely challenging time of intense persecution by the Romans, having lived through the cruelty of the Emperors Diocletian (ruling 284-305) and Maximian (ruling 286-305). One of the bishops present at Nicea, Paphnutius, had even lost his right eye and been given a limp in his left leg as a consequence of his profession of faith. According to one ancient writer, Theodoret (393-457),

“Paul, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, by which the nerves which give motion to the muscles had been contracted and rendered dead. Some had had the right eye dug out, others had lost the right arm. Among these was Paphnutius of Egypt. In short, the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.”

It strikes me as odd, therefore, that one would suppose that the early Christian movement, has come out of such difficult times like those, would capitulate so easily to the emperor Constantine’s demands with respect to defining the very fundamentals of their faith!

The story of the Nicean council begins in Alexandria in northwest Egypt. The archbishop of Alexandria was a man by the name of Alexander. A member of his senior clergy, called Arius, took issue with Alexander’s view of Jesus’s divine nature, insisting that the Son is, in fact, himself a created being. In similar fashion to modern Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arius maintained that Jesus was like the Father inasmuch as they both existed before creation, played a role in the creation and were exalted above it. But the Son, according to the theology of Arius, was the first of God’s creations and was commissioned by the Father to create the world.

On this point, Alexander strongly disagreed, and publically challenged Arius’s heretical teachings. In 318 AD, Alexander called together a hundred or so bishops to talk over the matter and to defrock Arius. Arius, however, went to Nicomedia in Asia Minor and rallied his supporters, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was a relative by marriage to Constantine, the emperor, and a theologian in the imperial court. Eusebius and Arius wrote to many bishops who had not been involved in the defrocking of Arius. The effect was the creation of divisions among the bishops. Embarrassed by such bickering, the emperor Constantine convened the ecumenical council of Nicea in 325.

Constantine’s primary concern was imperial unity rather than theological accuracy, and he desired a decision that would be supported by the greatest number of bishops, regardless of what conclusion was reached. His theological advisor, Hosius, served to get the emperor up to speed before the arrival of the bishops. Since Arius was not a bishop, he was not invited to sit on the council. However, his supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia acted on Arius’s behalf and presented his point of view.

Arius’s position regarding the finite nature of the Son was not popular with the bishops. It became clear, however, that a formal statement concerning the nature of the Son and his relationship to the Father was needed. The real issue at the council of Nicea was thus how, and not if, Jesus was divine.

A formal statement was eventually put together and signed by the bishops. Those who declined to sign the statement were stripped of their rank of bishop. The few who supported Arius insisted that only language found in Scripture should feature in the statement, whereas Arius’s critics insisted that only non-Biblical language was adequate to fully unpack the implications of the language found in the Bible. It was Constantine who eventually suggested that the Father and Son be said to be of the “same substance” (homoousios in Greek). Although Constantine hoped that this statement would keep all parties happy (implying the complete deity of Jesus without going much further), the supporters of Arius insisted that this language suggested that the Father and Son were equal but didn’t explain how this was compatible with the central tenet of monotheism (i.e., the belief in only one deity).

Nonetheless, the Nicean creed did indeed incorporate this language. It stated,

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead; And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, ‘There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is from a different hypostasis or substance, or is created, ir is subject to alteration or change — these the Catholic Church anathematizes.”

With the exception of two (Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarcia), the creed was signed by all the bishops, numbering more than 300. Arius’s supporters had been overwhelmingly defeated.

Arius’s supporters, however, managed to find some wiggle room. A single letter iota changes the meaning of homo (“same”) to “like” (homoi). The latter could be exploited by Arius and his followers to describe a created Christ. Moreover, it was argued, the creed could be interpreted as supporting Sabellianism, an ancient heresy which fails to discriminate between persons of the Godhead. It was this in-house squabbling between bishops that ultimately led to the council of Constantinople in 381.

A company of bishops started to campaign for the formal reinstatement of Arius as a presbyter in Alexandria. Constantine yielded to their petition and, in 332, re-instated Arius as a presbyter. Athanasius, who had recently succeeded his mentor Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was instructed to accept Arius into the church once again. Needless to say, Athanasius did not comply with this order. The consequence was an exile. Constantine had little interest in the precision of his theology — rather, it was the struggle for imperial unity that was his motivation.

In conclusion, although popular misconceptions about the council of Nicea are rampant, the idea that the council of Nicea determined which books comprised the new testament or that it invented the deity of Christ to comply with the demands of Constantine are myths. Indeed, correct theology was of little concern to Constantine, who cared much more about imperial unity. Christians must make a serious effort to study and learn church history, so that when we encounter such claims in the media and in our personal evangelism, we may know how to present an accurate account of our history.

/by
The Speeches in Acts: Are They Authentic?

The Speeches in Acts: Are They Authentic?

Much of the book of Acts — about 50% — is comprised of speeches, discourses and letters. Among them, a total of eight speeches are given by Peter; a total of nine speeches delivered by Paul; there is Stephen’s famous address before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7:2-53); a brief address at the Jerusalem Council by James (Acts 15:13-21); the advice given to Paul by James and the Jerusalem elders (Acts 21:20-25); in addition to the letter to the Gentile churches from the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:23-29) and the letter to Governor Felix from Claudius Lysias (Acts 23:27-30).

An interesting question that we can investigate pertains to whether these speeches and other addresses are historically authentic, or whether they instead represent the invention of Luke, the author of Acts. It is this question with which this essay is concerned.

We have an indication that Luke himself accompanied Paul for a significant portion of his trip. This is implied by Luke’s use of the pronoun “we”, beginning in Acts 16. This means that Luke was present during Paul’s speech in Athens (Acts 17), his address to the elders of Ephesus (Acts 20), his speech in Jerusalem (Acts 22), and his defense before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa (Acts 24-25). Since Luke was a close companion of Paul, it is entirely plausible that Paul gave Luke the wording of his other sermons. He may have even given Luke information pertaining to Stephen’s address to the Sanhedrin, at which Paul was present (Acts 7:58). Luke likely received material from Peter regarding his speeches. James may also have provided material regarding the Jerusalem Council.

Now, it is clear that these speeches are presented by Luke only in summary form (see Acts 2:40). But the question that concerns us here is whether these speeches are truthfully represented by Luke or whether he falsely attributes those words to the speakers. For the sake of brevity, this article will focus on the speeches of Stephen, Peter, and Paul.

Stephen’s speech, given in Acts 7:2-53, makes extensive allusion to the Old Testament Scriptures, drawing out the history of the Jews from Abrahamic times to the time of Solomon’s temple. In all, the book of Acts quotes the Old Testament a total of 40 times. 15 of those quotations appear in Stephen’s speech. This repeated quotation of the Old Testament does not resemble Luke’s literary style but instead suggests that its origin lies with a theologian of Stephen’s caliber. Moreover, there are at least 23 words that are never to be found in the book of Acts (or for that matter throughout the rest of the New Testament) apart from Stephen’s speech. Stephen’s particular way of talking about the temple and Moses is also not found anywhere except in this speech of Stephen. Further, the words affliction and promise take on a special significance in this particular discourse that does not reflect the way in which these words are used throughout the rest of Acts.

Peter’s speeches in Acts utilize similar word choice and ideas to his epistles. For example, consider the following striking parallels (in terms of both word choice and concepts) between the speeches of Peter in Acts and Peter’s first epistle:

“…by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge…” (Acts 2:23) //  “…chosen according to the foreknowledge of God…” (1 Peter 1:2)

  • “Silver or gold I do not have…” (Acts 3:6) // “…it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed…” (1 Peter 1:18)
  • “…the faith that comes through him…” (Acts 3:16) // “Through him you believe in God…” (1 Peter 1:21)
  • “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets.” (Acts 3:19-21) // “Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” (1 Peter 3:11-12)
  • “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism…” (Acts 10:34) // “Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially…” (1 Peter 1:17)
  • “…whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead…” (Acts 10:42) // “But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.” (1 Peter 4:5)

When taken as a cumulative case, the evidence points uniformly to the Petrian origin of the sermons attributed to him in Acts.

As for the sermons of Paul, there is also a clear connection between the speeches and epistles of Paul. For example, in Acts 13:39, when preaching in the synagogue in Antioch, Paul states, “Through him, everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses.” This doctrine of justification is a common and characteristic theme throughout Paul’s epistles. In Paul’s sermon in Athens, he declares, “In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent,” (Acts 17:30). This sentence bears resemblance to the statement in Romans 3:5: “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.” Also in common with Paul’s Acts 17 sermon in Athens, Paul’s letter to the Romans indicates that God has revealed Himself through creation (Romans 1:19-21) and that there will come a “day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ,” (Acts 2:16).

Furthermore, consider the following parallels between Paul’s address to the Ephesian elders  and his epistles:

  • “I served the Lord with great humility…”  (Acts 20:19) // “Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.” (Romans 12:11) // “…with great humility…” (Ephesians 4:2)
  • “I consider my life worth nothing to me; my only aim is to finish the race…” (Acts 20:24a) // “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” (2 Timothy 4:7)
  • …and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me…” (Acts 20:24b) // “See to it that you complete the ministry you have received in the Lord.” (Colossians 4:17)

In conclusion, although the speeches in Acts are presented in summary form, there is a good reason to think that the sermons recorded by Luke do not, in fact, originate with the pen of Luke but are indeed authentic sermons presented by the individuals to whom they are attributed. If this is so, then we have source material underlying the Acts of the Apostles that dates back exceedingly early and provides us with a unique insight into the primitive beliefs of the early Christian movement.

/by

What’s in a Name? New Evidence for Eyewitness Testimony in the New Testament

What’s in a name?  More than you might imagine when it comes to establishing the credibility of historical accounts.  Since names change dramatically over a relatively short period of time, historians can help discover whether an historical document accurately reflects the time it purports to describe by examining the names found in the text.

As revealed in Dr. Richard Bauckham’s book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, (which N.T. Wright describes as a “remarkable piece of detective work”), the frequency of names found in the Gospels and Acts is exactly what one would expect to find if those documents were written in the First Century by eyewitnesses or those that knew eyewitnesses.   Here are some relevant facts unpacked in detail by Dr. Bauckham in chapters 3 and 4:

41.5% of men in First Century Palestine bore one of the nine most popular male names, while 40.3% of men in the Gospels and Acts bore one of those names– a remarkable correlation.

The most common names for Jews living outside of Palestine in the First Century were dramatically different than those living in Palestine (and thus different from those found in the Gospels and Acts).

The names found in the Apocryphal Gospels (such as the Gospels of Thomas, Mary, Judas) are not congruent with First Century Jewish names in Palestine, which is another reason why we know that such “gospels” were forgeries written much later.

To discover how much common names change over just fifty years, I went to the Social Security Administration to see what were the most common names of babies born in the 1950’s vs. the 2000’s (click on that link– it’s one of the few things the government does that is actually fun to see!).  Of the top ten male names in the 1950’s, only two made the top ten in the 2000’s.  Of the top ten female names in the 1950’s, none were in the top ten in the 2000’s.  In fact, “Mary”– the most popular female name in the 1950’s– had dropped to number 65 just fifty years later!

Moreover, as we point out in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, it isn’t just the frequency of names that the New Testament gets right, but also the names of specific individuals known to live in the First Century. Non-biblical writers and archaeology confirm the existence and location of about 30 New Testament characters including: Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Ananias, Annas, Aretas, Augustus, Bernice, Caiaphas, Claudius, Drusilla, Erastus, Felix, Gallio, Gamaliel, Herod Anitpas, Herod Archelaus, Herod the Great, Herod Philip I, Herod Philip II, Herodias, James, Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Judas of Galilea, Lysanias, Pilate, Quirinius, Porcius Fesus, Sergius Paulus, and Tiberius Caesar.

How did the New Testament authors, without the aid of modern research tools, get all these names right if they did not have access to eyewitness testimony from the First Century?  It takes more faith to believe in the late dating of the New Testament that liberals assert (without evidence by the way) then to just follow the evidence where it leads– right back to where Jesus walked in First Century Palestine.

For more on this topic, listen to my 5/21/2012 CrossExamined radio podcast here, and read a short article by Dr. Craig Hazen of BIOLA university here.

/by