Page 60 – CrossExamined

5 razones por las que la Resurrección de Jesús no es una copia de antiguos mitos paganos

Por Alisa Childers

Nos acercamos a una época del año en la que se celebra la resurrección de un niño nacido de una virgen al que los seguidores llamaron “Buen Pastor” y “Mesías”. Tuvo doce discípulos, hizo milagros y se sacrificó por la paz del mundo. Fue enterrado en una tumba para resucitar de entre los muertos tres días después. Sus seguidores siguieron celebrando su resurrección cada año, y esta celebración acabó convirtiéndose en lo que llamamos “Pascua”.

¿Crees que estoy hablando de Jesús?

No. Estoy hablando de Mitra.

Esta es una afirmación común que hacen los escépticos en todos los medios de comunicación populares, en Internet e incluso en algunas universidades. El único problema es que no es cierto. Según la tradición Mitraica, Mitra nació de una roca sólida (¿supongo que cuenta si la roca era virgen?) Su nacimiento se celebraba el 25 de diciembre, pero los cristianos ya sabían que esa no era la fecha real del nacimiento de Cristo. No hay evidencia de que tuviera doce discípulos, de que se sacrificara por la paz mundial o de que se llamara “Buen Pastor” o “Mesías”.Muchos personajes mitológicos se consideraban milagrosos (así que tal vez pueda concederles eso), pero no hay pruebas de que haya muerto, lo que hace que su “resurrección” sea un pequeño dilema.

El padre de la Iglesia Tertuliano escribió sobre creyentes mitraicos que representaban historias de resurrección, pero esto sucedió mucho después de la época del Nuevo Testamento. Por lo tanto, si hay un par de similitudes entre Jesús y Mitra, podría ser que los creyentes mitraicos copiaran a los cristianos…. y no al revés.

Mitra no es el único mito pagano del que los cristianos son acusados de imitar. Aunque la mayoría de los eruditos están de acuerdo en que no existían tales “dioses que mueren y resucitan” antes de Cristo,[1] aquí hay 5 razones por las que la resurrección de Jesús NO pudo ser una copia. (Estos 5 puntos son mi resumen de esta serie de 5 videos del Dr. Michael Licona).

1. Los mitos antiguos sobre los dioses que mueren y resucitan suelen estar vinculados a los ciclos agrícolas.

Cuando era una niña, recuerdo haber preguntado a alguien por qué existen truenos y relámpagos. A manera de broma, me respondieron que los truenos significaban que Dios estaba aplaudiendo o que tal vez los ángeles estaban jugando boliche en el cielo. En el mundo antiguo, la gente describía a sus hijos, cosas como el cambio de estaciones, la sequía y la lluvia de forma similar.
Imagina a un niño del antiguo Egipto preguntando a su madre por qué no ha llovido desde hace tiempo. La madre podría contarle la historia del dios de la tormenta Ba’al, que fue tragado por su hermano Mot, el dios de la muerte y del inframundo. Cuando la madre de los dos dioses lograba convencer a Mot de que dejara marchar a su hermano, volvía a llover, lo que explicaba el ciclo de la lluvia.

A diferencia de los mitos paganos, que eran acontecimientos anuales que se remontaban a un pasado lejano, la resurrección de Jesús fue un acontecimiento único. Se relató como un acontecimiento reciente que ocurrió en el transcurso de la vida de las personas que decían haberla presenciado, y no estaba relacionado con los ciclos agrícolas.

2. Los primeros cristianos eran judíos devotos y muy sensibles a la ley y las tradiciones judías.

Los cristianos del primer siglo debatían constantemente sobre cosas relacionadas con la ley. ¿Deben los hombres judíos mantener los ritos de purificación del templo? ¿Deben los gentiles circuncidarse? ¿Deben los cristianos comer carne sacrificada a los ídolos? Estos son los tipos de problemas que se tomaban muy en serio y se esforzaban por resolver.

En resuen, es absurdo concluir que personas que eran judíos piadosos, que debatían cosas tan particulares como si los creyentes judíos y gentiles debían comer juntos, tomaran prestado de los mitos paganos para crear los suyos propios.

3. La correlación no es igual a la causalidad.

A lo largo de la historia de la humanidad, no es difícil encontrar similitudes en las historias y paralelismos en las experiencias. Por ejemplo, todos conocemos el caso de un avión que despegó una mañana de Massachusetts y se estrelló contra uno de los rascacielos más altos de Nueva York, entre los pisos 78 y 80, matando a todos los que iban en él.Probablemente estés pensando en el espantoso ataque terrorista del 911 que cambió para siempre nuestro país. Sin embargo, en realidad me refiero al B-52 que se estrelló contra el Empire State Building en 1945.

Aunque estas dos tragedias comparten algunas similitudes espeluznantes, no existe ninguna conexión causal entre ellas. Del mismo modo, no se ha demostrado ninguna conexión causal entre la resurrección de Jesús y los mitos paganos.

4. Las comparaciones no son tan impresionantes.

Al igual que el ejemplo de Mitra mencionado anteriormente, la mayoría de los paralelos paganos no son tan concluyentes, una vez que superamos la retórica y examinamos realmente las pruebas.El mito pagano más comparable que precedió a la vida de Jesús podría ser la historia de un semidiós llamado Asclepio. Aun así, lo único realmente parecido es que, al igual que Jesús, era conocido por ser un sanador y, según el mito, resucitó a alguien de entre los muertos.
La mayoría de las comparaciones paganas se basan en tomar pedazos de diferentes mitos y figuras antiguas anteriores a Jesús y combinarlos con algunas personas reales posteriores a él. El esfuerzo que hay que hacer para componer una figura de Jesús es un poco exagerado y, francamente, no es tan impresionante.

5. La abundancia de mitos no anula la evidencia de la verdadera resurrección de Jesús.

Si vas a Barnes & Noble y echas un vistazo a la sección de ficción romántica, encontrarás portada tras portada de mujeres desamparadas que intentan resolver el mayor problema de sus vidas: ¿a qué héroe apuesto y galante elegirán? Se trata de una fórmula muy trillada que raya en lo ridículo, pero el hecho de que haya toneladas de ficción romántica no invalida la idea de que el amor romántico real existe.

La verdad es que hay tantas novelas románticas tontas porque el romance parece ser un deseo insaciable de la condición humana.

La vida en el Imperio Romano era brutal, la mayoría de la gente vivía en la pobreza, y con una sociedad así, la gente buscaba naturalmente la esperanza. Querían saber que el mal sería castigado y la bondad recompensada, y que habría una vida después de la muerte en la que se haría justicia. Al igual que el ímpetu detrás de la ficción romántica moderna, este es un deseo común de la condición humana.

Debemos esperar que surjan historias que satisfagan esta esperanza de inmortalidad. Esto no significa que la resurrección de Jesús sea ficticia o imposible. Si tenemos buenas pruebas de la resurrección de Jesús (las cuales tenemos), no hay razón para rechazarla simplemente porque pueda haber algunas similitudes en las historias de ficción.

En esta Pascua, no celebramos a Mitra ni a ninguna otra figura impotente de un antiguo cuento de hadas. Celebramos al verdadero y vivo Salvador que conquistó la muerte y la tumba para salvarnos y reconciliarnos con Dios. Ruego que esta publicación te lleve a estar de acuerdo y de manera confiada con el ángel de la tumba de Jesús al decir: ¡Ha resucitado!

Notas de pie de página:

[1] El profesor de la Universidad de Lund y erudito bíblico T. N. D. Mettinger escribió: “El consenso entre los eruditos modernos -casi universal- es que no hubo dioses moribundos y nacientes que precedieron al cristianismo. Todos son posteriores al siglo I”. (Citado de Lee Strobel, El Caso del Jesús Verdadero (The Case for the Real Jesus) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers es una cantante y compositora estadounidense, más conocida por formar parte del grupo femenino de música cristiana ZOEgirl. Ha tenido una lista de los diez mejores sencillos de la radio, cuatro lanzamientos de estudio y recibió el premio Dove durante su tiempo con ZOEgirl. Años más tarde, Alisa experimentó un profundo desafío a su fe de toda la vida cuando empezó a asistir a lo que más tarde se identificaría como una iglesia cristiana progresista. Este desafío empujó a Alisa hacia la Apologética Cristiana. Actualmente se puede leer, escuchar y ver el trabajo de Alisa en línea, así como adquirir su libro recientemente publicado sobre el cristianismo progresista, titulado Another Gospel.

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3bsxSUw

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Monica Pirateque

September 23, 2022/by Guest

The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Erik Manning

Skeptical critics argue that Luke wasn’t a traveling companion of Paul’s. Why do they say this? Let’s discuss one reason. NT scholar Uta Ranke-Heinemann asserts that in: “Acts and the epistles there are two Pauls. The historical Paul of the authentic epistles and the legendary Paul of Acts.” ¹

In other words, don’t confuse the colorful Paul of Acts with the actual Paul we read about in his letters. This indicates that Luke didn’t have firsthand knowledge of Paul. He must have lied about being his traveling companion and embellished a bunch of stories. But is the Paul of Acts that different from the Paul we read about in his letters? I’d say no. Not at all.

If anything, Acts showcases Luke’s talent as a reporter. When he portrays Paul’s personality, it’s clear that it’s the same as that in Paul’s epistles. Yet the similarities are subtle and indirect. They surface in an artless way. It’s doubtful this subtle consistency is the result of design or mere chance.

In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out a strong unity of personality in Paul’s character from Acts 20 and Paul’s letters.² This is his farewell address to the church leaders in Ephesus. In this speech we see both his genuine love and warm-heartedness. We also see his tendency to be a bit dramatic and emotionally manipulative. I don’t mean that as a slam. Whenever Paul puts on the pressure, it’s always for a good cause.

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

In saying goodbye to the elders at Miletus, Paul references his own trials and sorrows. He says he’ll never see the elders again, bringing them to tears. (Acts 20:25, 36–38) This is the same Paul who pressures Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he “owes him his own life.” (Philemon 17–19). Paul also shows this tendency to guilt trip people in 1 Corinthians. There he goes on about his trials and afflictions. He reminds them that he’s their spiritual father. In other words, he gives them the disappointed dad treatment. (1 Cor 4:8–14).

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

Another trait of Paul’s is his tendency to defend his blamelessness about money. (Acts 20:33–35.) He seems almost touchy about it. In the middle of his tearful goodbye with the elders at Miletus, he brings up how he worked to pay his own way. Paul’s harps on this theme a lot in his epistles.

In both 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8 Paul emphasizes that he worked night and day. He says that didn’t want to be a financial burden to the Thessalonians when he was with them. In 1 Corinthians 4:12 Paul stresses that up to the time of writing he is working with his own hands to support himself. And in 1 Corinthians 9:7-18, Paul goes over the top in showing that he’s above reproach in these matters. He teaches that ministers of the gospel have a right to receive offerings. But then he says “I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.” (1 Cor. 9:16) He’s pouring the drama on thick. Paul also comes across very touchy about his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11–12.

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

The Apostle Paul also tells the elders in Acts 20:29–32 that after his departure, false teachers will come. He tells them to resist them, remembering how he himself “admonished them with tears.” This is the same Paul we see in his letters who says that the “care of all the churches” comes upon him daily (2 Cor 11:28). It’s the same Paul who rebukes the Galatians for yielding to the pressures of the Judaizers. (Gal 4:16–20) He says that he’s “in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in them.” And he firmly warns the Philippians to “beware of dogs” when referring to false teachers. (Phil 3:2)

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

Furthermore, Paul is almost annoyingly uncompromising. In Acts 15:36-41 we see Paul getting into a heated discussion with Barnabas over Mark. Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia. Paul wasn’t about to bring him on another missionary journey. It didn’t matter how much Barnabas vouched for him. The two apostles ended up parting company because of Paul’s stubbornness. This is the same Paul who tells the Galatians that he had the cajones to publicly rebuke the Apostle Peter. He’s referring to the time when Peter would no longer eat with the Gentiles when the Jewish brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch. Paul wasn’t putting up with Peter’s capitulation. (Galatians 2:11-15)

PAUL’S SARCASM

Paul was also one fiery and sarcastic guy. He can lay it on pretty thick at times. This snarkiness is worth quoting in some passages. Paul shows his exasperation over the Corinthians’ fixation with the so-called super apostles. He wrote: “You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” (2 Corinthians 11:19-21)

Talk about getting punchy. But this is tame compared to what he writes to the Galatians. He wrote to tell them to not submit to the Judaizers who required circumcision for salvation. Paul was not happy that there were people perverting the Gospel and mixing the Law with grace. Paul writes: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal 5:4-12) Now that’s some razor sharp sarcasm. Lame pun intended.

We see this same mixture of anger and sarcasm from Paul in Acts, and it ties in to a striking external historical confirmation. In Acts 23:1-5, the Jews apprehend Paul and bring him before the Sanhedrin. Paul looks them in the eyes and says he’s served God and kept a good conscience. For this remark, he’s slapped on the mouth at the request of Ananias the high priest. Paul is furious. He says “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

In response, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is a bit strange. He says: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul didn’t realize who the high priest was? Ananias was the son of Nebedinus.³ He was the high priest when Felix’s predecessor, Quadratus, was president of Syria. The historian Josephus reports that Quadratus bound Ananias and sent him to Rome. This was so that he could give an account to Claudius Caesar over some shady business⁴.

Agrippa interceded for Ananias, and so he was able to return to Jerusalem. But Ananias wasn’t restored to his former office of high priest. Jonathan succeeded Ananias. We know this because Josephus refers to Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during Felix’s reign. This implies an interruption in Ananias’ high priesthood.⁵ Josephus tells us that assassins killed Jonathan inside the temple.⁶

After Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest remained unoccupied for some time. Eventually, King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the high priest⁷. The events in Acts 23 took place during this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood remained vacant. So by his own authority, Ananias acted, assumed the role of the high priest. This explains Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” This is another difficult detail that Luke gets correct. He doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. These sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Some think that Paul is being sarcastic here when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest.” He is probably well aware that Ananias is not the high priest properly so-called. So when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest”, the subtext is because he’s not. He’s a usurper. Paul is likely being snide here.

ONLY ONE PAUL

There’s more that could be said here, but I’ll stop for now. The bottom line is that the Paul we find in his uncontested letters is the same Paul we find in the Book of Acts. He’s the same warm-hearted, touchy, guilt-tripping, hot-headed, sarcastic and indefatigable Paul that we find in his letters. These parallels between Acts and Paul’s letters are unlikely to be the result of mere chance. And these correspondences regarding Paul’s character seem so casual and subtle that it’s unlikely they were designed that way. Through such indications, we see the texture of reality, the portrait, and the reportage.

The best explanation is that Luke knew Paul all too well, because he traveled with him. The biblical critics who say there are two Pauls are being their usual myopic selves. There’s only one Paul.

Footnotes

1. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith

2. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, Kindle Page 156

3. Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3

4. Antiquities 20.6.2

5. Antiquities 20.8.5

6. Antiquities 20.8.5

7. Antiquities 20.8.8

The Balance of Law and Love

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Tony Williams

Perhaps you, like me, have had the experience of being stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense such as speeding. I recall well the feeling of burning anger that the officer would dare to stop me, of all people, for barely going 17 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit. How dare this officer not realize what a great person I am, not to mention how rotten everyone else is!

As he politely wrote me a ticket and told me that I needed to slow down, it was hard not to tell him to go find a real criminal and waste their time, instead of a good and handsome young man such as myself. Needless to say, I was naive to think I was sinless, and the handsome part was probably a stretch too. I was young, though.

Not too much later in life, I found myself in a police officer’s uniform, driving a police car, and stopping cars for doing the very same thing I did on that fateful day when I got a ticket. It wasn’t that my opinion of police in general was low, only police that would believe that I was doing something wrong.

While I immediately enjoyed the job, which included plenty of adventure and opportunities to see the world as it really is, I couldn’t help but feel guilty of hypocrisy when I stopped cars. On top of that, the State of Illinois instituted mandatory seatbelt laws when I was a very young officer. I had never, never worn a seatbelt unless I was on a roller coaster. Now I was supposed to enforce a law I didn’t obey. How could I do such a thing?

And then I handled a few crashes. Then, I handled some crashes with injuries and some crashes resulting in death. I handled more than a few crashes that ended in senseless deaths that were completely avoidable with seatbelts, and often with the combination of speed or other recklessness. It made me understand why we conduct enforcement of traffic laws. It made me understand why laws about speed and seatbelts exist; to save people from crashing, from injuries and from death itself.

When the theory became reality my understanding of law enforcement changed. I found that traffic laws, and all the other laws I swore to enforce, were eventually rooted in protecting people. No matter the law, if you traced it to its source, they all originated in protecting people.

For example, stores are good. When you need stuff you can go there and buy stuff. However, if there is nothing to stop people from stealing stuff from the store, or from robbing the owners of the stuff, how could an owner ever hope to establish a profit. You wouldn’t be able to provide stuff to people.

Without the stores, things get bad pretty quick. Jobs are lost. Deliveries of stuff from other places stop. We are back to foraging for our stuff, which is a pretty tricky thing in 2022. But with laws for retail theft and robbery in place, there is a negative consequence to stealing and robbing. Stores are able to provide stuff to people who need it thanks to the criminal laws that give us a mechanism to dissuade most people from stealing from, or robbing the stores.

As I became better acquainted with the relationship between laws and the relationship to protecting people, I found that my ability to interact with law breakers changed for the better. For example, when stopping a car for speeding or a seatbelt violation after some experiences with traffic crashes ending in serious injuries or death I could quickly explain to drivers not just what law they broke, but I could explain why the law existed in the first place. I could say that I had seen the crashes and injuries and death that come about when people are not obeying laws.

There was a particular street in my city where I would run radar that was a major foot traffic and crossing point for school children and people with disabilities. When I explained to angry or irritated drivers that we have people who aren’t as mentally or physically able to adjust to speeding cars, almost every driver I explained those issues to had a completely different reaction to the stop. Full disclosure, I almost never write tickets. I am a softy. But if I could explain the rationale of the law that led me to the traffic stop, people typically left the encounter less annoyed, and with at least the knowledge that this street is one they should slow down for. It didn’t always work, but I was always willing to write it down for people who had trouble understanding.

Looking back, and with the perspective of my Christian contemplation and study, I realize now that the laws of society need love and love needs the law. If we make traffic laws simply for the purpose of revenue generation by police, no citizen will be pleased. We should expect outrage over the way that these laws would negatively impact the very people who pay taxes for the enforcement of those laws. If there is no clear way that the law benefits society at the individual or corporate level, it is just a disguised tax.

On the other hand, if we just hope everyone drives safely, and we have no laws and no consequences to ensure it, what motive would anyone have to drive safely, other than self -preservation? And the problem with self-preservation and traffic laws is that roads are used for multiple vehicles at one time. You may be the safest driver ever, but if Lenny Leadfoot is late for work and texting about how drunk he is as he eats a burrito in a construction zone, it won’t help you at the four-way intersection that he doesn’t see. And beyond the initial tragedy, there is no redress of grievances for those crashed into by unsafe drivers.

The law without love is simply an instrument of oppression. Love without the law may feel good for a while, but eventually a whole lot of people get hurt.

As we look at how Jesus interacted with the Pharisees, who were the legal scholars of the day, it seems clear He believed they were bound for hell, and leading others to hell. I only say that because He literally said that in Matthew 23:13. (ESV) In fact, the entire chapter is one “Woe to you” after another. The Pharisees were experts at what the law was, but were apparently not experts at why the law was. And I say that with fear and trembling, as I continue to discover the love in laws, especially Biblical laws.

As far as love without the law, in His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear that He did not come to abolish the law:

¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20 ESV)

It seems to me that, like the laws of science, the laws for man from God were devised to ensure his survival and his ability to thrive. Like the laws of physics and mass conspire to keep us from floating into space, or being squashed to the ground, good laws exist to protect man and allow for his survival and ability to thrive.

There must be some type of order because without order, disorder brings about only carnage and death. If I give you permission to do whatever you like to whoever you like because I say I love you, how does that work out for those you may choose to hurt? And if I say I love you so much that I allow you to injure yourself because you hate yourself, am I not agreeing with your inclination to hate yourself? This seems unloving to me.

The law, like gravity, seems inescapable. Love is not a certainty, but if laws are rooted in love, they will provide man the ability to survive and thrive. It seems to me the ministry of Christ was not to change the laws, but rather to bring the law and love back into balance. In dying for sin, on the cross, in our place, Jesus showed that the law must be accomplished, and yet He allowed our escape from the ultimate penalty of the law. We who recognize His motives no longer have the law as a master, but as a way to survive and thrive, not to mention glorify the One who created Heaven and Earth, and cares enough about us to provide a law, and a love that goes beyond our understanding.

What are we here for? | with David Limbaugh and Christen Limbaugh Bloom

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

Why do we study apologetics? To win arguments? No! The ultimate goal is to know God personally (not just with head knowledge) and to make Him known. After all, if we just believe that God exists, we’re no better than the demons in James 2:19!

On a lawyerly quest for truth, #1 nationally best-selling author David Limbaugh returns with his co-author and daughter Christen to discuss their new book, The Resurrected Jesus: The Church in the New Testament. In this fifth and final installment of the bestselling Jesus series, this book is part commentary and part devotional and digs into the New Testament epistles with passion and demonstrates to readers that even though Paul penned these writings thousands of years ago, they are still applicable to the Church today. We might ask ourselves: What’s always worth fighting for? The truth of the Gospel!

Frank, David, and Christen discuss our identity in Christ, spiritual warfare, how we are saved by grace, not works, and the greatest threats facing the American church today. They also discuss the late great Rush Limbaugh and how his faith gave him strength during his last days while fighting cancer.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST along with other exclusive content, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and jump into some great discussions about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

David and Christen’s book: https://amzn.to/3DrTJaV
Christen’s website: https://www.haplousofficial.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

Download Transcript

September 16, 2022/by Frank Turek

“Ser bueno” no es suficiente para la salvación

Español

Por Al Serrato

El objetivo de la apologética cristiana es “defender” la fe, y el objetivo de la fe es proclamar las buenas nuevas de la salvación al mundo. Salvación, naturalmente, significa salvar, y una persona solo necesita ser salvada cuando está en peligro.

Pero pregúntale a mucha gente hoy en día en qué peligro se encuentra: puede que te digan que están preocupados por el estado de la economía o la inflación, o por el aumento de los índices de criminalidad en todo el país, o por las dificultades que puedan tener en casa. Es poco probable que agreguen que también están preocupados por el destino final de su alma, o que desearían poder estar seguros de que pasarán la eternidad en presencia de Dios en compañía de los que han amado aquí.

¿Por qué? ¿Por qué hay tanta gente hoy en día tan confiada en que su alma no necesita salvación? Aunque cada vez hay más ateos, la mayoría de la gente sigue reconociendo que hay un Dios que los creó a ellos y a todo lo que nos rodea. Sin embargo, aunque se hayan alejado de la fe que una vez conocieron, no parecen preocupados por cómo les juzgará Dios algún día. La mayoría de las veces, si se les presiona, el secularista moderno dará una variación de: “Mira, soy una buena persona, después de todo, y Dios me juzgará en consecuencia. No hay nada que me preocupe”.

Hay docenas de definiciones de “bueno”, pero para nuestros propósitos, vamos a suponer que la mayoría de la gente entiende “bueno” como algo parecido a “moralmente excelente, virtuoso o justo”. Es de suponer que Dios contará todas las acciones moralmente excelentes, virtuosas o justas que hayan hecho en su vida, y esto inclinará la “balanza de la justicia” para permitirnos la entrada al cielo.

Pero esta analogía, al reflexionar sobre ella, no ofrece mucha seguridad. Al fin y al cabo, una balanza solo se utiliza si hay algo que colocar en el otro lado, algo que haga contrapeso o mida uno de los lados. Si una acción “buena” inclina la balanza en una dirección, entonces no realizarla, o peor aún, actuar de forma decididamente no buena, mueve la aguja en la otra dirección. La mayoría de la gente estaría de acuerdo en que actuar de forma “egoísta”, es decir, tomar decisiones que sólo lo benefician a uno mismo y no a los demás en su vida, no es una forma “buena” de actuar. Pero el egoísmo forma parte de la condición humana. Los padres lo ven en sus hijos pequeños, y la mayoría de los padres intentan alejar a los niños del egoísmo para que tengan un comportamiento más altruista. A esto hay que añadir las veces que no nos limitamos a no hacer el bien, sino que hacemos el mal intencionadamente, sin importarnos el daño que nuestras acciones puedan causar a los demás. Visto desde esta perspectiva, tenemos un verdadero problema, porque Dios lo ve todo y lo sabe todo. Él vive eternamente y ve todo lo que hemos pensado o hecho; las cosas que podemos ver como en nuestro pasado lejano permanecen en su presente eterno. Para cualquiera que haga una evaluación clara y racional de la situación, hay motivos reales para preocuparse de que la balanza con la que se nos mide se incline rápidamente en nuestra contra.

Abordemos esto con un ejemplo moderno. Repetidos estudios nos dicen que un porcentaje cada vez mayor de la población estadounidense tiene sobrepeso u obesidad. Los expertos en salud advierten constantemente de las numerosas consecuencias negativas que puede acarrear el exceso de peso, que van desde un mayor riesgo de sufrir graves consecuencias para la salud a causa del Covid hasta diversos tipos de enfermedades y cánceres. Aunque algunos factores involuntarios pueden contribuir a la obesidad, este estilo de vida poco saludable aún tiene que ver con la elección repetida de comer en exceso. Sospecho que nadie empieza su vida queriendo inclinar la balanza en su contra eligiendo la gula como estilo de vida. Lo más probable es que el resultado final sea el producto de muchas pequeñas decisiones, tomadas repetidamente a lo largo del tiempo. De hecho, es difícil luchar contra la capacidad humana de autoengaño. Ignoramos la evidencia frente a nuestros ojos, y de la balanza, mientras seguimos sintiéndonos “bastante bien” con nosotros mismos y con las decisiones que tomamos. Nos aplaudimos a nosotros mismos por saltarnos el postre o empezar una dieta, mientras ignoramos la voluminosa cintura que muestra la dirección en la que se inclina la balanza.

Lo mismo ocurre, al parecer, con las cosas eternas. Nos aplaudimos a nosotros mismos por donar a la caridad, o por ser voluntarios en el comedor social. Nos damos una palmadita en la espalda cada vez que controlamos nuestro temperamento. Nos alabamos por nuestro sentido de la tolerancia y nuestro pensamiento iluminado y nos rodeamos de gente que siente y piensa igual. Al hacer esto, nos centramos solo en un lado de la balanza, olvidando recordar las muchas veces que nos quedamos cortos… o peor aún, que nos comportamos mal intencionadamente.

Confiar en nuestra capacidad para mantener la balanza inclinada a nuestro favor -en el lado de que lo “bueno” supere a lo malo- simplemente no tiene en cuenta cómo un Dios perfecto ve nuestro comportamiento. Al igual que la lucha contra la obesidad a través de la dieta y el ejercicio, la lucha es gradual. De hecho, podemos hacer muchas cosas buenas y dignas de alabanza. Pero al igual que el acusado en un tribunal terrenal, la fechoría que le ha llevado ante el tribunal no se pasa por alto solo porque el acusado pretende impresionar al juez con las muchas buenas acciones que ha realizado en su vida. El objetivo de la sentencia, al declararse culpable, es atribuir la consecuencia adecuada al mal comportamiento en cuestión. De nada servirá presentarse ante un Dios perfecto y pedirle que olvide nuestras fechorías porque también hemos hecho algo bueno en nuestra vida. ¿Cómo se puede impresionar a un juez que ha establecido la norma de la perfección y que Él mismo es perfecto en todos los aspectos imaginables?

La buena noticia, por supuesto, es que Aquel que hizo la balanza, y que hará el juicio, nos ha dado los medios para volver a equilibrar la balanza. Esto requiere primero que nos veamos a nosotros mismos con la suficiente claridad como para aceptar que no podemos alcanzar el estándar de perfección de Dios por nosotros mismos. Cuando Jesús cargó con nuestros pecados en la cruz hace dos mil años, nos proporcionó los medios para reconciliarnos con Dios, para ser “perfeccionados”, de modo que podamos estar preparados y ser dignos de estar en presencia de un ser perfecto. Es Jesús quien hace la obra de la salvación, no nosotros y nuestros escasos esfuerzos por ser “buenos”.

Intentar hacer el bien es un objetivo loable. Lamentablemente, hoy en día, con demasiada frecuencia, escasea. Pero hacer el “bien” no va a ser suficiente cuando llegue ese día, como llegará para cada uno de nosotros, en que nos encontremos con nuestro Hacedor.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Al Serrato obtuvo su título de abogado en la Universidad de California en Berkeley en 1985. Comenzó su carrera como agente especial del FBI antes de convertirse en fiscal en California, donde sigue trabajando. Una introducción a las obras de C. S. Lewis despertó su interés por la Apologética, que ha seguido durante las últimas tres décadas. Comenzó a escribir Apologética con J. Warner Wallace y Pleaseconvinceme.com.

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Monica Pirateque

September 15, 2022/by Guest

My Heavens – Not in the Stars

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Josh Klein

The Four Horsemen of atheism stormed the cultural, philosophical, and spiritual scene in the early 21st Century. Their dogmatic atheistic positions (or even anti-theist depending on who you talked to) were immediately popularized.

The late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris comprised the crew. They rode their vitriol for religious thought smack into the mainstream, seeking, for what felt like the first time, to proselytize religious folk into converting to atheism. These men were dubbed “The New Atheists” by popular culture and seemed to take the world by storm, often denigrating their opponents as stupid and backwards.

Myth believing simpletons.

Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, sent ripples throughout Christianity and the religious mainstream as his caricature of God as the “flying spaghetti monster” made the world laugh at and ridicule Christianity, and other faiths, as ignorant at best and malevolent at worst. Daniel Dennett’s take on consciousness sought to wrest away the epistemic belief that religion alone could explain consciousness as a reality going so far as to indicate consciousness is but an illusion, and the late Christopher Hitchens’ work, God is Not Great, sought to expose religion as a poison for the masses that results in horrific abuses of power and violence. But all of these men did not make the waves that seemingly even-handed Sam Harris did.

Sam Harris, with his quiet and unassuming persona, engaged in discussions differently than his cohorts. Hitchens would engage in sophistry and sarcasm, Dawkins with loathsome denigration, and Dennett with condescension. Sam Harris was different. I found the tone of the other three off-putting and their arguments either humorous but unconvincing or intellectual but dull. However, Harris had a way about him that appealed to me. I believe it was his unwavering commitment to objective morality and the honest way he evaluated differing religions that drew me to him. Harris has been honest in his complimenting of what he believes to be Christianity’s positives while simultaneously holding Christians’ feet to the reasonable fire.[1]

I found his style winsome, even if his words were not, and his reasoning levelheaded and unemotive. He was, in a word, convincing. His seminal work, The Moral Landscape, sought to deal with a substantial problem in the atheistic realm. Without God as a moral standard bearer are we left with moral subjectivism?[2] And if so, who is to say that the Nazi’s were, indeed, evil? Or that murder is unjust? The moral argument for the existence of God remains one of the more powerful arguments in favor of theism[3] but Sam rightly understood that embracing moral subjectivism was untenable for the reasonable man, and thus, an effort at advancing objective moral values based on atheism was born. For Sam, a moral landscape could be (he might say ought to be) laid using scientific reason, rationality, and, as he puts it, facts.

“Controversies about human values are controversies about which science officially has no opinion. I will argue, however, that questions about values – about meanings, morality, and life’s larger purpose – are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc.”[4]

Sam’s commitment to objective moral values based on scientific facts intrigued me, and his book laid out what seemed to be a plausible explanation of objective morality. That is, until the reasoning was challenged. Upon further investigation one finds that Sam often smuggles in assumptions about human flourishing to make his argument palatable. While Sam addresses the what of morality he can never quite get to an honest why, as his discussion with Jordan Peterson revealed only a few years ago.[5] What are these objective moral values? Well, they are whatever Sam says they are. Certainly, they could not be grounded in Nazism or Islam. However, one could certainly argue (and both do) that both Nazis and Muslims believe they seek to contribute to the natural flourishing of humanity. Without realizing it, Sam has hitched his wagon to moral relativism by virtue of the fact that scientific facts do not adequately explain human flourishing.

It should come as no surprise that Harris, admittedly on the left end of the political spectrum and extremely vocal opponent of Donald Trump, said this concerning the 2020 Election cycle’s silencing of the Hunter Biden laptop story:

“[It was] a left-wing conspiracy to deny the presidency to Donald Trump. Absolutely it was. Absolutely, But I think it was warranted.”[6]

When pressed by the hosts of the podcast on his statement, one of which had a problem with the idea that a conspiracy ought to be used to deny office to any political candidate, Sam Harris doubled down, likening the conspiracy to that of a room full of scientists getting together to knock an asteroid off a collision course with earth. Some might be stunned that Sam would say such a thing, considering his distaste for subjectivism. In full consideration of his work, however, it is perfectly clear that he feels it necessary to be the arbiter of what is and is not objectively moral. To say it another way, Sam Harris, to himself, is a god.

Sam Harris is a coherent communicator, but his positions are often in conflict. His embrace of objective morality as an atheist is admirable but his assertion that free will is illusory is cumbersome to the argument and seems to stand diametrically opposed to it. If free will is illusory, then how are any agents morally culpable for their actions and how does objective morality fit in? Harris insists that the two are not at odds, but his insistence struggles to hold up to scrutiny. Alone, his arguments seem consistent. Combined, they often run directly at odds with one another. One cannot live life according to the philosophy espoused by Harris in a consistent manner, which is why Sam often indicates that living within the illusion is necessary.

It is in this manner that Sam is both the most and least effective new atheist. Take, for instance, Sam’s openness to the multi-verse theory:

“This is my candidate for the strangest idea that is still scientifically plausible.”[7]

In fairness to Sam, he does not himself espouse the multi-verse there but he seems interestingly open to the idea from a metaphysical perspective. Which, to me, makes his statements concerning the idea of heaven even more perplexing:

“Where is heaven exactly, given that we have multiple telescopes up there beaming back information.” – Sam Harris pic.twitter.com/9mKbBvO3uF

— David Decosimo (@DavidDecosimo) August 18, 2022

As I said on twitter, I used to like Sam Harris. I thought his critiques of Christianity were necessary (even if flawed) and that he was willing to dialogue about faith instead of simply debating it, but Harris has a nasty habit of building theologically ridiculous straw men only to knock them down with a smirk as if he’s accomplished something.

Whether Sam believes it or not, heaven (God’s dwelling place), has never (in the mainstream of the Christian faith) been understood to be in outer space. This critique of the theology of Heaven is meant to denigrate his intellectual opponents as just as ignorant as Grecian theologians believing in a literal Mount Olympus.

This has not been the orthodox understanding of the heavenly realm for millennia, if ever. As Randy Alcorn states:

“The present, intermediate Heaven is in the angelic realm, distinctly separate from Earth.”

Randy is not making this up out of thin air. Though we do silly Sunday School depictions of heaven in the clouds or speak of heaven in human terms as “above” us, this is not reminiscent of the real theology. There is no biblical or theological position that indicates heaven is physically in outer space where telescopes can see. This is not Thor.

One might say, “Sam Harris is a naturalist so he is presupposing that if a heaven exists then it must be in outer space where we could see it.” But this argument fails for two reasons. The first is that when engaging with a religion’s theology you must engage with their intended meaning to a have a meaningful debate. For instance, if I were to debate with a Muslim the nature of Allah, I cannot smuggle in my understanding of the Trinity to define Allah. If I apply my own view of the divine onto Allah then I have done a disservice to the conversation. Sam must interact, not with what he thinks heaven would be if it exists, he must interact with what Christians say that heaven is. He can deny its existence (just as I would with Allah) but he cannot do so based on false premises.

The second reason this defense fails is because of Sam’s already soft position on the multi-verse. If one can see the multi-verse as plausible then how can one so glibly dismiss a heavenly realm as impossible and ascribe the characteristics of this realm to that one? Sam would not do a believer in the multi-verse the disservice of this uncharitable presupposition concerning other universes and so, he does not need to do this disservice to the arguments for heaven either.

Scripture teaches that the current heaven is a place in the angelic realm. This is true in both the Old and New Testaments. Isaiah 6, 2 Kings 6, Daniel 10:20 and John 18:36 all indicate such. More specifically, the martyrdom of Stephen indicates a linking of the realms as well.

In Acts. 7:56, as Stephen is being stoned, he says, “Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (NASB). In Daniel 10, Acts 7, and Acts 9 we notice a phenomenon about the current heavenly realm. It can be revealed to specific individuals and hidden from others. Which means, the realm, though physically and spiritually in existence, stands outside our concept of this physical plane.

When Jesus ascends in Acts 1:9 there are many that might say Jesus ascended into heaven. This might mean the physical sky! But it doesn’t. A careful reading of the passage at hand will notice that the writer says, “And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.” This brings back imagery of Isaiah 6 and the glory of God.

In all these instances, the angelic/heavenly realm is not indicated to be in the stars themselves. Sam’s treatment of the matter was shallow and misrepresents, or misunderstands, the Christian doctrine of heaven. In scripture there are two heavens, one represents the sky and stars (the heavens) the other, the angelic realm. The delineations are clear and obvious to even the casual observer. Sam’s unevenness in handling this topic undermines his credibility as a good actor on the philosophical stage and highlights the arrogance of his atheistic belief. In this short interview Sam reveals why his objective morality without God is nonsense and why is objections to Christian theology, in particular, are often not in good faith. And thus, his credibility stands on shaky ground.

Footnotes

[1] https://www.samharris.org/blog/reply-to-a-christian

[2] https://freethinkingministries.com/the-moral-argument-a-short-dialectic/

[3] https://freethinkingministries.com/an-ignorant-objection-to-the-moral-argument-for-gods-existence/

[4] Harris, Sam. “Introduction.” The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press, New York, 2010, pp. 2–2.

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jey_CzIOfYE

[6] https://nypost.com/2022/08/19/sam-harris-defends-silencing-the-post-on-hunter-biden/

[7] https://www.samharris.org/blog/the-multiverse-you-you-you-you

How We Got Our Bible: Modern Translations

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This article will consider the differences among the modern translations.

Translation Theory

Have you ever wondered why Bible translations differ from one another? For example, some say “brothers” while others say “brothers and sisters.” Or some say “he knew her” while others say “he had sexual relations with her.” Why the differences? Two factors explain why.

The first factor is textual. Which Greek or Hebrew text is the base text for the English translation? The TR or the NA? And which textual variant most likely represents the original? Because I already dealt with textual criticism in article six of this series, I’ll simply refer you to that article.

The second factor which explains the differences among the translations is linguistic. Bible translators must ask themselves how they can best transfer the words and ideas from the original languages into English. Should they seek a translation that is more literal word-for-word? Or should they seek a translation that irons out the meaning in a more readable way? Or should they land somewhere in between?

Translations ultimately land somewhere on the spectrum between a more literal word-for-word translation (formal equivalence) and a meaning-for-meaning translation (dynamic equivalence). Formal equivalent translations will give a more literal rendering “Adam knew Eve” (ESV), while dynamic equivalent translations will give the meaning “Adam had sexual relations with his wife, Eve” (NLT). If you’re wondering where your favorite translation lands on the spectrum, I’ve listed some of the more popular translations below:

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

Translating currency, weights, and measures is a difficult task. Consider the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant. Matthew 18:24 reads:

“One was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents” (ESV).

“A man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him” (NIV).

“One of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars” (NLT).

The difficulty in translating “talents” (which is the more literal translation) is immediately obvious. The word talent means something completely different in our modern vernacular. The ESV decided to stick with the literal rendering, but at what expense? (no pun intended) Even if someone were to realize talent refers to a currency, they still have no idea how much a talent was worth.

The NIV decided that a literal rendering would not be helpful. But they also decided that giving a literal amount was impossible. Therefore, they went with “ten thousand bags of gold.” How much is ten thousand bags of gold worth? A whole lot! Though no specific amount is given.

The NLT went in an even different direction. While they are similar to the NIV in that they don’t list a specific amount, they decided to translate the currency into American dollars. This decision, however, suggests that they are thinking primarily of an American audience. Why not the British pound?

Another example is Isaiah 5:10.

“For ten acres of vineyard shall yield but one bath, and a homer of seed shall yield but an ephah” (ESV).

“A ten acre vineyard will produce only a bath of wine; a homer of seed will yield only an ephah of grain
(NIV).

“Ten acres of vineyard will not produce even six gallons of wine. Ten baskets of seed will yield only one basket of grain” (NLT).

You can see that both the ESV and the NIV translated the measures in a literal way. In doing so, they tell us exactly what the Hebrew text says. But who knows what a “homer of seed” or an “ephah” is? The NLT, again, attempts to give the meaning by using understandable terms such as “gallons” and “baskets.”

Euphemisms

Every culture has its own euphemisms. “That one bit the dust” or “He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed” would confuse anyone trying to learn English for the first time. If someone were to translate those phrases into another language, should they translate them word-for-word like above, or give the meaning of the phrases?

We find scores of Hebrews and Greek euphemisms in the Bible. Consider Rachel’s words to her father Laban in Genesis 31:35.

“Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee; for the custom of women is upon me” (KJV).

“Let not my lord be angry that I cannot rise before you, for the manner of women is upon me” (NASB).

“Don’t be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I’m having my period” (NIV).

The KJV and the NASB give a more literal rendering of the Hebrew text while the NIV gives the meaning of the euphemism.

Another word, though technically not a euphemism, that Bible translators wrestle over is the word “flesh.” Consider Paul’s words in Romans 7:18.

“For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh” (ESV).

“For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature” (NIV).

“For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh” (CSB).

I grew up in church, so I am familiar with the term “flesh.” That said, someone picking up a Bible for the first time might be confused by this term. In Romans 7:18, both the ESV and the CSB give the literal rendering of the Greek, while the NIV gives Paul’s meaning.

Grammar and Syntax

Every language has a unique structure. Greek and Hebrew have different structures from English. That said, a literal wooden word-for-word translation would be so unreadable and unhelpful, that even the most formal equivalent translations like the NASB smooth out the sentences into English.

One grammatical issue that Bible translators wrestle with revolves around the genitive case. The genitive is often thought of as the “possessive case” in cases such as “my dog” or “Billy’s house.” Yet, many times, the genitive does not convey possession but functions more like an adjective. The formal translations, however, still tend to translate these genitives as possessives by giving the literal rendering “of.” Speaking of God the Son, Hebrews 1:3 states:

“he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (ESV).

“upholds all things by the word of His power” (NASB).

“sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV).

Both the ESV and the NASB give the wooden genitive “of” reading while the NIV smooths out the meaning and shows that power is not a possessive but an adjective modifying “word.”

Gender Pronouns

The final issue we will consider deals with gender inclusion. Hebrew and Greek both used masculine pronouns to describe humans in general. The Greek word anthropos functions this way. And to an extent, we still do this today when we say things like “mankind.” That said, English translations wrestle through translating the masculine pronouns so as to not exclude the female gender. Some translations stay with the literal rendering, while others attempt to give the meaning. Consider Psalm 1:1.

“Blessed is the man” (ESV).

“Blessed is the man” (NASB).

“Blessed is the one” (NIV).

“Oh, the joys of those” (NLT).

“How happy is the one” (CSB).

The more literal reading is “man.” That said, the meaning is gender inclusive.

Different Translations

So, which Bible translation should you use? Well, it all depends on your goal. If you’re looking to give a Bible to a young child, you may consider a Bible on the dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum. If you’re wanting a Bible to read consistently throughout the year, I’d recommend multiple Bibles. The NIV and CSB are nice options as they strike a nice balance between formal and dynamic equivalencies. That said, it’s also nice to have a Bible that gives you a more literal rendering so that you can get a better idea of what the original languages say.

Personally, I consult at least three Bibles when I’m studying a text. I look at both a formal and dynamic translation, as well as one somewhere in-between.

Letter to the American Church | with Eric Metaxas

Podcast

Would you have stood up against slavery in the 1860s? Or against Nazi Germany in the 1930s? What about your pastor? It seems the Church today is more interested in being politically correct than speaking out in defense of the truth. But can it really be God’s will that His children be silent at a time like this?

Best-selling author (Bonhoeffer, Luther, Amazing Grace, Miracles) and radio host Eric Metaxas joins Frank to reveal highlights of his new book, Letter to the American Church, where he summons the Church to battle and calls for pastors (and other Christians) to be courageous enough to speak up against the massive anti-Christian forces that now threaten to permanently transform American society.

In this podcast episode, Frank and Eric bring to light four major errors we make in thinking that Christians should NOT be involved in politics or other controversial issues:

A misunderstanding of the word FAITH.
The idol of evangelism.
There is no command “Don’t be political!”
Avoiding sin is not the central purpose of the Christian life.

They also discuss the spiral of silence, religious liberty, and the haunting similarities between today’s American Church and the German Church of the 1930s. We hope you’ll share both this podcast episode and Eric’s book with your pastor and church congregation!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST with Frank and Eric, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community and join us for some great conversation about this podcast and many other topics without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, or co-workers!

Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3qeeRtp

Eric’s website: https://ericmetaxas.com/

If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.

Download Transcript

September 9, 2022/by Frank Turek

4 nuevos argumentos a favor de la Resurrección de Jesús

Español

Por Brian G. Chilton

Durante casi diez años, he tenido el honor de ofrecerles razones para creer en la resurrección de Jesús. Ahora me encuentro al final de una licenciatura en estudios teológicos y apologéticos. Para algunos, la educación avanzada tiende a hacer que uno dude de su posición con el tiempo. Sin embargo, ese no ha sido el caso para mí y la resurrección de Jesús.

En los últimos años, he encontrado cinco nuevas razones de peso para creer que la resurrección de Jesús fue un acontecimiento histórico legítimo. Estos cinco argumentos pueden o no ser nuevos para el lector, pero se volvieron nuevos para mí a través de mi investigación y son más nuevos que algunos de los argumentos anteriores dados sobre la resurrección en artículos anteriores. Sin más preámbulos, considere los siguientes cinco nuevos argumentos a favor de la resurrección de Jesús.

La naturaleza inesperada de la resurrección

El primer argumento es una de las mejores pruebas de la resurrección que nunca había considerado. He aquí, que nadie en la época de Jesús esperaba que el Mesías se levantara de entre los muertos. En el Evangelio de Mateo, los líderes judíos argumentan que los discípulos robaron el cuerpo de Jesús (Mateo 28:11-15). De todas las teorías alternativas sobre la resurrección, ésta es por mucho la más convincente. Independientemente de que se sostenga que los discípulos robaron el cuerpo de Jesús, que inventaron la historia o que fingieron la muerte de Jesús, hay un aspecto que los escépticos no tienen en cuenta. Nadie en el primer siglo anticipó la inminente resurrección de Jesús. Esto es evidente en el encuentro de Jesús con Marta en la tumba de Lázaro. Recordemos que cuando Jesús le preguntó a María si creía que Lázaro se levantaría de entre los muertos, ella respondió: “Yo sé que resucitará en la resurrección, en el día final” (Jn. 11:24 LBLA). La respuesta de Marta representaba la posición típica de los fariseos y los esenios. Josefo señala que la gran mayoría de la población del Israel del siglo I era farisea.

N.T. Wright aporta dos razones por las que la resurrección fue inesperada en el siglo I. Por un lado, los creyentes que vivían en los tiempos del judaísmo del Segundo Templo preveían que la resurrección traería consigo la “restauración de Israel… 2025 la nueva vida encarnada de todo el pueblo de YHWH”. Por otro lado, nadie en la época relacionaba al Mesías con la resurrección. El concepto de que el Mesías resucitara al tercer día, aunque pudiera estar reflejado en los textos del AT hasta cierto punto, no era en absoluto esperado por los creyentes de esta época. Por lo tanto, la falta de previsión de una resurrección supone un golpe fatal para cualquier teoría que proyecte a los primeros cristianos como aquellos que planificaron tal experiencia. ¿Por qué fingir algo que no creían que fuera a suceder en primer lugar?

Múltiples fuentes independientes

Cuando se trata de cualquier acontecimiento de la historia, es importante contar con la atestación de múltiples fuentes. Cuantos más ojos se tengan sobre un acontecimiento, más precisa será la verdad que se pueda preservar. Cuando se trata de la resurrección, tenemos múltiples fuentes que apuntan a que la resurrección de Jesús es un hecho histórico. Primero, tenemos las cuatro fuentes independientes que se encuentran en los Evangelios. Mateo, Marcos, Lucas y Juan proporcionan relatos únicos de las apariciones de Jesús en la resurrección. Mateo relata el encuentro de Jesús con los discípulos en Galilea después de la resurrección. Marcos informa sobre las mujeres en la tumba y su misterioso encuentro con los ángeles en la tumba. Lucas proporciona múltiples relatos que no se conservan en los otros Evangelios, incluido el encuentro de los dos discípulos con Jesús en el camino de Emaús (Lc. 24:13-35). Juan ofrece múltiples relatos que no se incluyen en los otros Evangelios, como el encuentro de Tomás con Jesús (Jn. 20:24-29), el encuentro de Jesús con los discípulos en el Mar de Galilea, la reincorporación de Pedro por Jesús (Jn. 21:15-19) y la pregunta de Pedro a Jesús sobre el ministerio de Juan (Jn. 21:20-23).

Además de los Evangelios, una quinta fuente se encuentra en el credo primitivo de 1 Corintios 15:3-9. El credo primitivo proporciona información adicional sobre las apariciones de Jesús en la resurrección. Habla del encuentro de Pedro con Jesús resucitado (1 Cor. 15:5), del encuentro entre Jesús y Santiago (1 Cor. 15:7) y de su aparición ante más de 500 personas (1 Cor. 15:6). Una sexta fuente se encuentra en los resúmenes de los sermones de Pedro en el libro de los Hechos (Hechos 2:14-41 y 3:12-26). Una séptima fuente se encuentra en el resumen del sermón de Esteban (especialmente en Hechos 7:52 y 7:59-60). Por último, una octava fuente se encuentra en los resúmenes de los sermones de Pablo. En el primer resumen del sermón de Pablo, éste habla incluso de la tumba vacía de Jesús (Hechos 13:29). Max Wilcox ha encontrado de forma convincente numerosos semitismos en los resúmenes de los sermones de Hechos 1-15 que en gran medida no se encuentran en el resto del libro. Por lo que los sermones de estos capítulos proceden de resúmenes anteriores que son anteriores a la composición del libro de los Hechos. Dado que una buena estimación de la datación de los Hechos es de mediados de los años 60, se puede decir que estos resúmenes son muy anteriores. El hecho de que hablen de la resurrección de Jesús proporciona una razón más para adoptarla como un evento genuino de la historia.

Testimonio extremadamente temprano

El estudio de los credos tempranos del NT está cobrando fuerza. Aunque pueda afirmar lo contrario, el erudito del NT y autoproclamado ateo-agnóstico Bart Ehrman escribió que Pablo recibió los credos (por ejemplo, 1 Cor. 15:3-9) mientras estaba en Jerusalén en el año 35 o 36 d.C. Continúa diciendo que “las tradiciones que [Pablo] heredó, por supuesto, eran más antiguas que eso y por lo tanto deben datar de un par de años más o menos después de la muerte de Jesús”. Dado que los primeros credos afirman sin reservas la resurrección corporal literal de Jesús, esto proporciona una evidencia firme de que los primeros discípulos creían que Jesús había resucitado de entre los muertos. El resumen del sermón de Pablo también afirmaba la creencia de que la tumba de Jesús estaba vacía, como se señaló anteriormente. En el caso de muchos, si no la mayoría, de los primeros credos, estamos hablando de que circularon entre unos meses y unos años después de la crucifixión de Jesús. Los credos que se encuentran en las epístolas paulinas surgieron de la información que Pablo obtuvo de su interacción con la Iglesia de Jerusalén un par de años después de su conversión (Gal. 1:18). Pasó dos semanas con Pedro y Santiago aprendiendo sobre las enseñanzas y doctrinas de Cristo. Como señala C. H. Dodd, “podemos suponer que no se pasaron todo el tiempo hablando del clima”. Así pues, la proclamación de que Jesús había resucitado de entre los muertos llegó muy pronto desde el lugar donde Jesús había sido crucificado. Los detalles de los resúmenes de los primeros sermones de los Hechos y los credos de las epístolas de Pablo constituyen un argumento completo y convincente de la predicación temprana de la resurrección. Cuando se combina con el primer argumento, es difícil encontrar otra explicación fuera del hecho de que Jesús resucitó literalmente de entre los muertos.

La única cristología escatológica primitiva

Por último, se ha observado que la cristología más antigua es la más elevada cristología. Además, las primeras tradiciones de Jesús respaldan la idea de que Jesús habló de una figura escatológica que introduciría el reino de Dios. Esta figura escatológica se conoce como el Hijo del Hombre. Podría decirse que el Hijo del Hombre constituye el núcleo cristológico de Q – un Evangelio teórico que precede a los Evangelios canónicos. Parte de esta tradición primitiva incluye el comentario de Jesús de que, al igual que “Jonás estuvo en el vientre del gran pez tres días y tres noches, el Hijo del Hombre estará en el corazón de la tierra tres días y tres noches” (Mateo 12:40). La figura del Hijo del Hombre se encuentra casi exclusivamente en las enseñanzas de Jesús. Por lo tanto, esta fue una enseñanza única de Jesús. La figura del Hijo del Hombre no sólo se relaciona con que Jesús es el regente de Dios que trae el reino de Dios a la tierra, sino que también habla de su glorificación, que se relaciona con su resurrección. Por lo tanto, la predicación de Jesús sobre la resurrección fue recordada y preservada por los primeros discípulos debido al cumplimiento literal de Jesús de esta promesa única e inesperada.

Conclusión

Algunos de estos argumentos pueden ser nuevos para usted y otros no. Algunos de estos aspectos se desarrollarán más en mi disertación pendiente. No obstante, la naturaleza única e inesperada de la resurrección, la predicación temprana de la resurrección, las múltiples fuentes y la identificación escatológica temprana de Jesús con la resurrección hablan con fuerza de la probabilidad de que Jesús resucitó literalmente de entre los muertos el primer domingo de Pascua. Mi esperanza es que estos argumentos a favor de la resurrección de Jesús, además de los argumentos clásicos, fortalezcan su fe y le ofrezcan la esperanza de que hay una vida más allá de esta mera existencia mortal.

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton es el fundador de BellatorChristi.com y es el anfitrión de The Bellator Christi Podcast. Recibió su Maestría en Divinidades en Teología de la Universidad Liberty (con alta distinción); su Licenciatura en Ciencias en Estudios Religiosos y Filosofía de la Universidad Gardner-Webb (con honores); y recibió la certificación en Apologética Cristiana de la Universidad Biola. Actualmente, Brian está inscrito en el programa de doctorado en Teología y Apologética de la Universidad Liberty. Brian ha estado en el ministerio por más de 15 años y sirve como pastor en el noroeste de Carolina del Norte.

Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3wRX4fh

Traducido por Jennifer Chavez

Editado por Monica Pirateque

September 9, 2022/by Guest

How Mainstream Media Gaslights Christians (and Everyone Else Who Disagrees with Them)

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

by Natasha Crain

I had a revelation last week that, in retrospect, was many years overdue. So overdue that it borders on embarrassing to admit this was a revelation in 2022. Here it is:

Mainstream media doesn’t try to be objective.

Now, before you laugh too hard, let me make a clear distinction: I’ve long known mainstream media is not objective. But I had strangely held onto the assumption that they thought they were being objective and just woefully lacked enough self-awareness to see how crazily biased they were.

What I realized last week is that of course they know how biased they are…whether they’ve ever stopped to acknowledge the changed nature of so-called “news” or not. We’ve simply drifted over time into a land where the unstated new normal is that virtually all news is essentially op-ed.

Perhaps the reason I naively held onto the idea that news is inherently supposed to be objective is that I started out as a broadcast journalism major in college. Way back in the ancient days of 1994, I was taking classes that presupposed every good journalist sought to be objective. Our news story homework assignments would come back to us with the finest of edits, designed to carefully root out any trace of bias. After all, if we ever wanted a shot at working for places as heralded as CNN was at the time, we had to learn how to be…unbiased.

What a crazy thought today.

Not only is mainstream media not trying to be objective, but they’re also openly advocating for specific viewpoints. And not only are they openly advocating for specific viewpoints, but they’re also strategically manipulating public thought.

Psychological manipulation over time in the search for control over people’s thinking is called gaslighting. It’s the process of making someone believe they’re crazy and question their entire view of reality.

Maybe that sounds dramatic, but I don’t think it is. There is a coordinated effort amongst mainstream media sources to achieve a specific type of public influence today—an influence directed toward achieving a uniformity of thought that’s nearly always at odds with a Christian worldview.

While Christians realize this to varying degrees, I don’t believe we’re collectively thinking enough through the implications of just how much this media sea change has affected, is affecting, and will affect both our own worldview and the worldview of those around us.

Consider the significance of the following five implicit messages that mainstream media constantly trumpets in a variety of ways.

1. “Pretty much everyone agrees with how to view issues of cultural importance. If you’re one of the ones who disagree, you’re on the extreme fringe of society. That should tell you something about the accuracy and reasonableness of your views.”

In the early 1980s, there were fifty independent companies that owned the majority of media in the US. But by 2011, just six conglomerates controlled 90 percent of media. The fact that a handful of companies control nearly all media outlets makes it possible to present a unified viewpoint on any issue. It looks to media consumers as though the “authoritative” news voices around them are all aligned with certain viewpoints, but it’s really all coming from the same handful of companies.

Make no mistake: The appearance of unified thought coming from sources people perceive to be representative of culture at large is very powerful—especially when you’re in a worldview minority. As I discuss at length in Faithfully Different, it’s estimated that only 6 percent of Americans have a biblical worldview (accepting core teachings of the Bible). Yes, 65 percent of Americans identify themselves with the label “Christian,” but the vast majority of self-identified Christians hold beliefs in conflict with basic biblical teachings about things such as the existence of objective morality, the reality of heaven and hell, the nature of God, and much more.

If you’re in the 6 percent whose worldview is based on what the Bible teaches, you’re going to feel the pressure of seeing that nearly everyone in culture—including those who identify as a Christian—thinks differently. And media wants to capitalize on that aspect of our humanity that makes us question our beliefs just because they differ from the norm. But remember: There’s no such thing as democracy when it comes to what’s true about reality; numbers will never determine truth.

2. “Here’s the language that’s acceptable to use if you’re going to be an acceptable member of society.”

Beyond the uniformity of viewpoint achievable due to the structure of media ownership, there’s uniformity even at the detailed level of language. That’s because there’s a language guide that has long functioned as the default style manual for mainstream news organizations. It’s called the Associated Press (AP) Stylebook.

The AP Stylebook goes far beyond what words everyone should capitalize in a headline or when to hyphenate; they give viewpoint guidance as well. They recently issued, for example, a guide for coverage on transgender issues.

Ironically, the guide begins, “Journalists on all beats must be able to write about and interview transgender people using accurate, sensitive, unbiased language.” But what follows is anything but unbiased. As a small sampling of the guide, media is told to:

adopt the language “sex assigned at birth” rather than something like “birth gender” or “born a girl,” presumably to emphasize how arbitrary the sex “assignment” decision is;
describe a transgender person using phrasing such as “is a woman” rather than “identifies as a woman,” presumably to emphasize the certainty of a person’s new identity;
avoid terms like “biological male,” which they say are used by “opponents of transgender rights” to “oversimplify sex and gender”; and
not use phrasing that “misgenders people or implies doubt, such as former men’s swimmer or currently competes as a woman.”

And that’s just a small fraction of the content. It’s very clear that journalistic expectations now include using language in a way that accepts and promotes the mainstream secular narrative. The more the public hears carefully curated phrasing designed to subconsciously transform how we view issues, the more those who refuse to use such language will be viewed with resentment. Once again, the idea is that this is where society at large is, and if you’re not there with your words, there’s something wrong with you.

(If you’ve marveled at how mainstream media can euphemistically refer to the intentional killing of preborn babies as “abortion care,” this is the same strategy at work. Transform the language, and you’ll transform how people think.)

3. “These are the subjects that are most important to know about and discuss.”

Every day, thousands and thousands of editorial decisions are made as to what makes the news. In other words, before we even get to the bias in how stories are told, we have the bias of what subjects are even selected to tell.

One study, for example, showed that the major broadcast networks gave three times more airtime to the pro-choice Women’s March than to the pro-life March for Life, despite comparable participant numbers and location. If you had been watching these networks, it would have been easy to assume that the pro-choice Women’s March was far more culturally significant, even if that wasn’t necessarily the case.

I regularly visit the Facebook news tab to track this phenomenon and see what they’re pushing users to consider important. From the looks of it, they really want me to be aware when a celebrity changes pronouns (Demi Lovato this week), when new state abortion restrictions have (allegedly) jeopardized a woman’s health, and that Christian nationalism is a terrifying threat.

Story selection strongly shapes our view of what the “world” is talking about, and that can significantly influence what we believe is most important if we’re not careful. But there are plenty of issues important for Christians that you’ll rarely see discussed in mainstream media. Wins for religious freedom, for example, will likely not see the light of day, or if they do, they’ll be covered negatively. Christians need to take it upon ourselves to stay informed about issues mainstream media won’t discuss.

(For religious freedom issues in particular, I highly recommend following the Alliance Defending Freedom.)

4. “These are the things you need to be very afraid of…and the solutions that will make you safe again.”

Whether it’s Covid, monkeypox, climate change, the loss of supposed “abortion rights,” or the idea that the world is one step from nuclear annihilation, continually perpetuating fear drives ratings and clicks. Frankly, that’s just business. It’s how they make money. But fear is also undoubtedly used strategically to push people to favor desired solutions.

This is a tactic that works with just about anyone—Christian or not—because it speaks to our human nature. We just have to be self-aware enough to recognize it.

When people are scared for themselves, they’re more likely to hand over freedoms to the government to ensure some measure of safety. But the bigger the government control in the name of safety for all, the lesser the tolerance and rights for any who won’t fall in line.

And when people are scared for others, they’re more likely to accept positions that might otherwise be at odds with their own moral knowledge. I’ve read countless comments from Christians, for example, who are afraid to take a stand against so-called gender affirmation surgeries for teens because they’ve been told teens will commit suicide if they aren’t affirmed in a chosen gender. Media sees what fear can drive and continually perpetuates those statistics to sway views. (Abigail Shrier’s book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters is a must-read on this subject.)

Similarly, many Christians claim to be pro-life personally but don’t support banning abortion because media has made them fear that abortion bans will be responsible for women dying from situations like ectopic pregnancies (this is completely false.)

When people are scared, whether for themselves or others, it gives media a reason to take the presumed moral high ground and demonize anyone who doesn’t support safety. That’s effective because now you’re not someone who simply disagrees—you’re someone who is putting others in either mental or physical jeopardy. Christians on the receiving end of that characterization need to be deeply convicted of the biblical justification for their positions in order to not feel the psychological weight of thinking their views actually hurt others.

(And for the record, I’m not saying that there aren’t things to be legitimately concerned about. I’m specifically talking about how the media elevates appropriate levels of concern to a point where they can leverage crisis-level fear to their benefit and agenda.)

5. “It’s not just us saying these things…look at all these Christian leaders who agree. Trust them even if you don’t trust us.”

Someone not following the news closely might think that Christians are actually well represented in the media. After all, mainstream outlets somewhat regularly feature interviews with or articles about various Christian leaders. CNN, for example, recently featured a lengthy interview with high profile pastor Andy Stanley titled “The evangelical church faces a ‘state of emergency’ over the pandemic and politics, Andy Stanley says.”

But of course CNN was pleased to publish an interview with a well-known pastor criticizing the evangelical church and scolding Christians for taking sides in politics. That’s what they’d like to do themselves, but it’s more effective to have one of our own say it in the hope we’ll question any differing understanding we may have. (The interview was based on Stanley’s new best-selling book, Not In It To Win It: Why Choosing Sides Sidelines the Church, which I discussed the problems with in my last podcast— “Why Christians Must Care about Politics.”)

Similarly, The Washington Post is happy this week to feature the headline, “Clerics sue over Florida abortion law, saying it violates religious freedom.” Of course, they’re going for the shock value of suggesting religious leaders are for abortion as much as anyone else and that it’s actually a matter of religious freedom.

Any Christian writer/speaker/pastor whom mainstream media is happy to feature should take deep stock of why they’re receiving an invitation to the party. It’s not because media wants to genuinely share a Christian view that differs from the norm. It’s almost certainly because your view doesn’t differ from the norm that they want to promote your voice as an example to all those “other” Christians. And if your view doesn’t differ from the norm, it’s probably a good time to consider if the media has already done a really good job of convincing you to think like them.

The other day, my son and I drove by a used bookstore in town, and he noted the sign posted in the front: “Browse books and exchange ideas.” He jokingly said, “That might be the last place for the free sharing of ideas in America.” We laughed at the thought that the final outpost for the welcome exchange of differing views might be this tiny bookstore in our town. But the way mainstream media functions today, it’s not far from the truth that the open exchange of ideas will have to happen in places people very intentionally seek out.

1. Los mitos antiguos sobre los dioses que mueren y resucitan suelen estar vinculados a los ciclos agrícolas.

2. Los primeros cristianos eran judíos devotos y muy sensibles a la ley y las tradiciones judías.

3. La correlación no es igual a la causalidad.

4. Las comparaciones no son tan impresionantes.

5. La abundancia de mitos no anula la evidencia de la verdadera resurrección de Jesús.

Notas de pie de página:

Recursos recomendados en Español:

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

PAUL’S SARCASM

ONLY ONE PAUL

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Translation Theory

Linguistic Issues

Currency, Weights, and Measures

Euphemisms

Grammar and Syntax

Gender Pronouns

Different Translations

Recommended resources related to the topic:

La naturaleza inesperada de la resurrección

Múltiples fuentes independientes

Testimonio extremadamente temprano

La única cristología escatológica primitiva

Conclusión

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Recommended resources related to the topic: