By Natasha Crain
With the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion potentially pointing to Roe v. Wade being overturned, social media is on fire with pro-choice advocates sharing memes intended to portray abortion “rights” as necessary, important, and even morally good.
For those of us who believe intentionally killing preborn human beings is murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life), it’s absolutely heartbreaking to see so many people passionately advocating for the right to commit such an act. In response, many Christians have taken to private social media groups to share examples of pro-choice memes and discuss how best to respond.
While it’s not necessary to respond to every post you come across (there aren’t enough hours in the day!), I’m heartened to see so many Christians wanting to address what they’re seeing. That said, I’ve noticed that many people’s responses are missing the key point of the debate as much as the memes themselves are.
As such, I wanted to write this article to respond to several viral pro-choice memes and show how to maintain focus on the core issue without getting pulled into irrelevant other subjects. But first, a critical distinction must be understood.
Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings
Imagine that you come across someone posting the following on social media: “I’m an atheist. I do not believe anything exists beyond the natural world, and therefore I do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Nothing is morally right or wrong, so I’m pro-choice because I believe there’s nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn baby.”
In this case, the pro-choice advocate is merely being consistent within their own naturalistic worldview. They believe morality is only a matter of opinion, given their view of the nature of the universe. If a Christian is pro-life as a logical outworking of their biblical worldview and an atheist is pro-choice as a logical outworking of their naturalistic worldview, the ensuing conversation isn’t so much about abortion as it is about their respective underlying worldview assumptions.
Worldview-level discussions about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the corresponding rights (or lack of rights) held by preborn humans certainly transpire in some circles. And these worldview-level questions are ultimately what the debate comes down to.
But this is rarely the level of conversation floating to the top of social media.
In fact, I’ve seen virtually no pro-choice social media posts addressing these questions in popular discourse. Rather, emotion-driven memes carry the day—memes that are nearly always logically fallacious red herrings. In other words, they distract from the real issue with points completely irrelevant to the core (worldview) question at hand:
Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?
That’s it. That’s what the debate comes down to.
For clarity, the logic behind the answer for Christians with a biblical worldview is as follows:
- It’s morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
- Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings.
- Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
With this in mind, let’s look at brief responses to eight of the most popular pro-choice memes circulating right now to see how to highlight the red herring and point back to the real issue. As we’ll see, they all fail to address the core question: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).
Social media example:
If intentionally killing a preborn baby is morally wrong, whatever a person does or does not do to support a child and/or their parents does not change the morality of the action itself.
Virtually everyone, for example, would agree that rape is morally wrong. If a person opposed to rape does absolutely nothing for rape victims, we still acknowledge that their opposition to rape is the morally correct position to hold. Logically speaking, the morality of an action must be evaluated on its own basis. The core question remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?
[Avoid the trap: Don’t try to prove your motivations in response to the wording “if it was about babies…” If someone wants to question your motivations, they’re unlikely to be convinced otherwise by your words. The morality of abortion has nothing to do with any individual’s motivation for holding a given position. Also, don’t start breaking down each good we should supposedly provide (formula, diapers, etc.) to show why it’s unnecessary, unfeasible, or already sufficiently provided. All you’re doing is playing into the red herring.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.
Social media example:
This is logically quite similar to the first meme, but with a twist that often confuses people: equivocation on the term “pro-life” (equivocation is the use of ambiguous language—typically using the same word with two different meanings).
Pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate, means that a person is opposed to abortion. Here the writer wants to make the political point that if you really care about “life,” you’ll agree with a bundle of other positions (ones they assume to be the best life-sustaining positions). But Roe v. Wade is not about a bundle of issues related to human life. This is a question of one specific human life issue.
Again, intentionally killing preborn babies is either morally wrong or it’s not. Whether someone takes a morally right or wrong position on any other issue is irrelevant to whether they’ve taken a morally right or wrong position on abortion.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t start trying to defend that you really are pro “all life,” but that being pro “all life” doesn’t translate into supporting each of the particular positions listed. If you start trying to prove your pro “all life” credentials by getting into detailed discussions on all these other issues, you’re simply playing into the red herring.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.
Social media example:
The logic here is similar to that of the first two memes, but I wanted to include it because this one is especially popular, and it has a slightly different framing: It’s a “Christian” pastor presumably chastising fellow Christians for only caring about who is easiest to advocate for. Non-Christians of course like this because the accusation is coming from one of “our own.”
But regardless of who it’s coming from and regardless of how relatively easy or uneasy it is to advocate for any particular group, the morality of actions against that group remains the same.
That’s it. Even if advocating for the preborn were the easiest thing on earth relative to advocating for other groups, it doesn’t change whether intentionally killing those babies is morally wrong or not. If we’re talking about abortion laws, that’s the question that matters.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t get caught up in showing that this pastor is progressive and doesn’t hold a biblical view. That’s true, but the source of the comment is irrelevant. Also avoid debating how easy or uneasy it is to advocate for different groups—as I’ve shown here, that too is irrelevant.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.
Social media example:
The basic logic here is that it’s better to kill a preborn human than to allow that human to be born into bad circumstances, ranging from poverty to abuse. But many humans live in and always have lived in bad—often terrible—circumstances regardless of whether their parents wanted them. The pro-choice advocate would almost certainly not say that we should kill every human who lives in or will live in a set of circumstances deemed to be insufficiently pleasant. Imagine the outrage if our society started pulling toddlers out of the homes of poor families to kill them! The only difference between that scenario and the one in the meme is that the child is already born.
Again, it’s either morally wrong or it’s not to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Whether a given human’s parents want to or are able to raise that human according to certain standards has nothing to do with whether killing them is right or wrong. We wouldn’t apply that logic to humans who are already born; there’s no logical reason to apply it before birth either.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t enter into debate about how good a child’s life can be even in bad circumstances. The morality of abortion doesn’t depend on how good or bad a child’s life turns out to be. That’s another red herring.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.
Social media example:
This idea comes in many different meme forms, but the basic logic is that men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body because men can’t get pregnant. (As an aside, I’m not sure how long this argument can go unchecked today given that trans activists claim trans men–biological women–can be pregnant. Will feminists declare that there really are differences between trans men and biological men and allow trans men alone to speak, given their reproductive capabilities? Only time will tell.)
Once again, this avoids the question of the morality of abortion with an emotional red herring. Our society has laws against murder because we’ve collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; our laws unashamedly restrain the freedom of citizens to kill one another. It’s no more “controlling,” therefore, to have restrictions on what would-be murderers do with their bodies to kill others than it is to have restrictions on what pregnant women do with their bodies to kill others. The only relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, and the morality of an action doesn’t depend on the gender of who makes the law. (As many people have pointed out, it was an all-male Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade in the first place, so by this logic, pro-choice people should reject that court decision as well.)
[Avoid the trap: Don’t get distracted by the claim that “conservative Christianity” is about controlling bodies. That’s just a jab at Christians. Focus on the “my body, my choice” logic, which quickly fails for the above reasons.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.
Social media example:
The logic here is identical to that of the last meme except it takes out the gender-specific language. Rather than “men have no right to tell women what to do with their body,” it’s “no one has a right to tell women what to do with their body.” Once again, we have all kinds of laws in society that restrict the use of one’s body to intentionally hurt or kill other humans. Abortion laws are not unique in telling someone what they can or can’t do with their body when it comes to other human lives.
The relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, not whether society is in a place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. We already do that in all kinds of ways.
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.
Social media example:
I’m always shocked that someone would make this argument, but it always comes up, so let’s look at the logic: We should keep the intentional killing of preborn human beings legal because if we don’t, certain racial and economic groups will be better able to find illegal ways to kill babies than others. In other words, poor people and people of color won’t have equal opportunity to kill.
We simply do not apply this kind of thinking in other cases—we don’t make actions legal because some groups of people are better able to skirt the law! If we did that, we’d probably have no laws at all. As a society, we work to provide equal opportunity for good not for bad.
The question, therefore, remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being? If it is, there’s no need to give people equal opportunity to do what’s wrong.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of discussing which groups of people do or do not need abortion “access”—no one needs access to a moral wrong.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.
Social media example (this is a copy and paste post that is viral around Facebook):
I’m not pro-murdering babies.
I’m pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I’m pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I’m pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I’m pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn’t mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I’m pro-Melissa who’s working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I’m pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
I’m pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I’m pro-Christina who doesn’t want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.
I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster’s child.
I’m pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I’m pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I’m pro-Courtney who just found out she’s already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
You can argue and say that I’m pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I’m pro-life.
Their lives.
Women’s lives.
You don’t get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
Women’s rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
I’ve saved this one for last because it’s like a capstone example for this article. I’ve seen so many Christians ask how to respond to this post, presumably because it looks so overwhelming. There are a dozen different types of cases given here, and the intent is clearly to confront the reader with too much to respond to. The writer wants to show that there are just too many difficult circumstances leading to a woman’s desire for abortion, so we shouldn’t make blanket restrictions; too many bad things exist that make abortion access necessary.
While the logical problems could be pointed out with each individual case (and I’ve seen people do that well), I think this is more simply and effectively dealt with by sticking with the high level logic the post is using: If difficult circumstances result in or from a human life being created, a woman needs the right to kill that preborn baby. To see the logical problem, apply that thinking to a human being already born…if difficult circumstances lead to one human wanting to kill another human, should we legalize that murder due to their difficult circumstances? As with an earlier meme, we don’t apply that logic in such cases. There’s no reason to apply it to the preborn either.
As one other logic point, to say that you’re not “pro-murdering babies” but are pro-women who want to be able to is a fallacy called distinction without difference. In other words, if you’re for women being able to kill a preborn baby, you’re “pro-(the ability to) murder babies.” Drawing a cursory distinction via word choice does not change the central issue of whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being.
[Avoid the trap: There are certainly nuances to some of the cases listed here that could warrant further points. For example, in the case of Vanessa, the baby has already died; that’s not about abortion at all. However, most people posting this aren’t looking to get into conversation about the details. Their whole point is that there are too many considerations that warrant conversation, so we should leave the choice to women. In general, I’d recommend avoiding the trap of replying to each case and stick with the overall points of logic I described here.]
Christians are called to speak truth, but sometimes before we can even speak truth about the sanctity of life, we need to help people see the flawed logic of popular claims. Once we sweep away logical errors so we can clearly see the core question (Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?), we of course need to be prepared to make the case for life. For help in doing so, I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf’s book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3MFd1uY
Hollywood Heroes That Reveal God: Wonder Woman, Captain America, and Star Wars (Part 2)
PodcastZach Turek rejoins Frank to show how your favorite movies reveal God, and how even the Apostle Paul used the stories of his day to communicate the Gospel to non-believers. Drawing on their new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God, Frank, and Zach discuss the fact that many movie characters reveal the characteristics that make Jesus our ultimate hero. In this episode, they do a deep dive on Wonder Woman, Captain America, and the Star Wars saga, and end with surprising insights about Jesus. If you missed the first episode, be sure to check out Part 1 where they discussed Iron Man, Harry Potter, Batman, and The Lord of the Rings.
Hollywood Heroes is a great book for anyone who likes movies and is especially helpful to parents and youth leaders looking to build a modern-day bridge to the gospel. The book is also filled with apologetics and Biblical life lessons, which are taken straight from the movies even those made by non-Christians.
You can get a signed copy by Frank and Zach when placing your order through ImpactApologetics.com (while supplies last)!
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
Cómo obtuvimos nuestra Biblia: tabla canónica del Nuevo Testamento
EspañolPor Ryan Leasure
Este artículo es la cuarta parte de una serie de nueve, que trata sobre cómo obtuvimos la Biblia. En la primera parte se analizó la inspiración bíblica y la inerrancia. En la segunda parte se analizó el desarrollo del Antiguo Testamento. Y la parte 3 investigó el canon del Antiguo Testamento y los apócrifos.
En este artículo, trataremos el canon del Nuevo Testamento. En concreto, quiero abordar dos preguntas. En primer lugar, ¿habrían esperado los cristianos del primer siglo nuevas Escrituras adicionales al Antiguo Testamento? Y, en segundo lugar, ¿qué atributos buscaba la Iglesia en los textos canónicos?
¿Habría esperado la Iglesia del primer siglo nuevas Escrituras?
El erudito bíblico Harry Gamble comentó en una ocasión: “No hay ningún indicio en absoluto de que la iglesia primitiva contempló la idea de las escrituras cristianas… Por lo tanto, el Nuevo Testamento tal como lo pensamos estaba completamente alejado de las mentes de la primera generación de creyentes cristianos.”[1] ¿Qué debemos hacer con la afirmación de Gamble? ¿Tenía razón? ¿Asumió la iglesia primitiva que Dios había terminado de inspirar las Escrituras tras el cierre del Antiguo Testamento? Creo que tenemos buenas razones para rechazar las afirmaciones de Gamble. Permítanme darles tres razones.[2]
1. Los judíos del primer siglo consideraban la historia del Antiguo Testamento como incompleta
Varios textos de los Evangelios y de Hechos de los Apostoles, demuestran que los judíos del siglo I esperaban que Dios hiciera algo en su generación. No sólo estaban pendientes del Mesías (Lucas 2:38; 2:25; Juan 1:41; 4:25), sino que esperaban que Dios introdujera su reino y derrocara a sus opresores (Hechos 1:6; véase Dan. 2:31-45).El segundo período del Templo (intertestamental) también confirma esta misma expectativa (Tob 14:5-7; Bar 3:6-8). Como N. T. Wright señala, “La gran historia de las escrituras hebreas fue leída inevitablemente en el período del Segundo Templo como una historia en busca de una conclusión.”[3]
El cierre del Antiguo Testamento también da la impresión de que los judíos esperaban que un rey davídico se levantara entre sus filas. Ten en cuenta que de acuerdo con el ordenamiento judío, Crónicas fue el último libro del Antiguo Testamento. Y precisamente ese libro comienza con una larga genealogía centrada en el rey David (1 Crónicas 1:3). No es una coincidencia que el comienzo del Nuevo Testamento continúe justo donde se dejó el Antiguo Testamento, con una genealogía enfocada en el Hijo de David (Mateo 1). Es como si el Evangelio de Mateo llevara la historia del Antiguo Testamento a su necesario cumplimiento.
2. El Patrón de Dios de traer nueva Palabra-Revelación después de sus actos de redención
Según el patrón del Antiguo Testamento, Dios suele dar depósitos de revelación después de sus actos redentores. Vemos este patrón consecutivo más claramente en el Éxodo. Dios redimió a su pueblo de Egipto y tras a esa redención hace entregas de las Escrituras en el Sinaí para interpretar sus actos de salvación. Dada esta historia, no es inconcebible que la iglesia primitiva esperara más revelación escrita tras el acto de redención de Jesús.
3. El Antiguo Testamento predijo que la futura era mesiánica incluiría la comunicación verbal
El Antiguo Testamento no sólo predijo una futura era mesiánica, sino que predijo que la comunicación acompañaría al Mesías. Deuteronomio 18:18 predice: “Un profeta como tú levantaré de entre sus hermanos, y pondré mis palabras en su boca, y él les hablará todo lo que yo le mande.” Isaías 61:1-2 dice del Mesías que: “El Espíritu del Señor Dios … me ha ungido el Señor para traer buenas nuevas a los afligidos… para proclamar libertad a los cautivos … para proclamar el año favorable del Señor.” Y de esta era mesiánica, leemos: “Porque de Sión saldrá la ley, y de Jerusalén la palabra del Señor” (Isaías 2:2-3).
En resumen, aquellos que vivieron después del cierre del Antiguo Testamento reconocieron que la historia estaba incompleta, que Dios normalmente daba palabra-revelación después de sus actos redentores, y que el Antiguo Testamento anticipaba una era mesiánica verbal.
¿Qué atributos buscaba la Iglesia primitiva en un texto canónico?
Ahora que hemos establecido la expectativa de la Iglesia primitiva de recibir más textos bíblicos, debemos preguntarnos qué atributos habrían buscado en esos nuevos textos bíblicos. En el espacio restante, consideraré tres de estos atributos: autoridad apostólica, marcas de inspiración y recepción universal.[4] Consideremos cada atributo canónico por separado.
Autoridad apostólica
Volviendo al Nuevo Testamento, los apóstoles reconocieron que eran “ministros de un nuevo pacto” (2 Cor 3:6), y que la iglesia estaba “edificada sobre el fundamento de los apóstoles y profetas” (Ef 2:20). También reconocieron que Jesús los había enviado como garantes y transmisores de su mensaje al mundo (Juan 20:21). Por estas razones, la Iglesia primitiva sólo recibía textos que pudieran remontarse a un apóstol.
Por lo tanto, desde muy temprano, la iglesia recibió los cuatro Evangelios, los Hechos y las cartas de Pablo. Por supuesto, Pablo da a conocer su autoridad apostólica en sus cartas, pero los Evangelios no hacen tal afirmación. ¿Cómo entonces recibieron el estatus apostólico en una etapa tan temprana de la iglesia?
Los críticos sostienen que, dado que los autores no mencionan sus nombres en el cuerpo del texto, los Evangelios deben haber sido originalmente anónimos. Sólo después de algún tiempo, la Iglesia añadió títulos para dar a estas obras anónimas la credibilidad necesaria. Sin embargo, las afirmaciones de los críticos carecen de pruebas. Todos los manuscritos más antiguos con títulos incluyen a Mateo, Marcos, Lucas y Juan como autores. Además, numerosos padres de la Iglesia afirman inequívocamente que Marcos escribió su Evangelio basándose en el testimonio ocular de Pedro, y que Mateo, Lucas y Juan escribieron sus respectivos Evangelios.
Dicho esto, ¿por qué la iglesia recibió a Marcos y Lucas si ellos no eran apóstoles? Es debido a su estrecha relación con los apóstoles. Es decir, los libros con autoridad apostólica no se limitaban solo a los libros escritos por los apóstoles, sino también a los que provenían de los círculos apostólicos. Observa el comentario de Tertuliano sobre la autoría de los Evangelios: “De los apóstoles, por lo tanto, Juan y Mateo primero nos inculcan la fe; mientras que los hombres apostólicos, Lucas y Marcos la renuevan después”.5[5] Tertuliano afirma que Marcos y Lucas eran “hombres apostólicos” por su estrecha relación con los apóstoles Pedro y Pablo.
Esta proximidad a los apóstoles explica también que Hebreos se haya incluido en el canon. El autor indica que conocía a Timoteo (Heb 13:23) y que el mensaje del Evangelio “La cual, después que fue anunciada primeramente por medio del Señor, nos fue confirmada por los que oyeron” (Heb 2:3). Estos dos textos combinados indican que el autor se movía en círculos apostólicos (probablemente paulinos) y, por tanto, su libro era apostólico.
La familia de Jesús (Santiago y Judas) también recibió un estatus cuasi-apostólico basado en su relación con el Señor. No sabemos mucho de Judas, pero sabemos que Santiago llegó a ser un líder prominente en la iglesia de Jerusalén y más tarde mártir por su fe cristiana.
Al mismo tiempo, la Iglesia rechazó los libros de fuentes no apostólicas. Comentando sobre el mal llamado Evangelio de Pedro, el padre de la iglesia Serapión declaró: “Recibimos tanto a Pedro como a los otros apóstoles como Cristo, pero los escritores que falsamente llevan sus nombres los rechazamos“.[6] Serapión afirmó que la iglesia debía rechazar el herético Evangelio de Pedro y todos los demás que falsamente llevan los nombres de los apóstoles (Tomás, Felipe, etc.).
El Fragmento de Muratori hace un comentario similar alrededor del año 180 d.C. Señala: “Se dice que hay otra carta en nombre de Pablo a los laodicenses, y otra dirigida a los alejandrinos, ambas forjadas de acuerdo con la herejía de Marción, y muchas otras que no pueden ser recibidas en la iglesia católica, ya que no conviene que el veneno se mezcle con la miel”.[7]
De nuevo, la Iglesia rechazó todas las falsificaciones. El fragmento también señala que el amado Pastor de Hermes no debe recibir estatus canónico porque fue escrito “muy recientemente, en nuestros tiempos”. En otras palabras, alguien escribió este libro después de que todos los apóstoles hubieran muerto.
Marcas de Inspiración
En segundo lugar, la Iglesia buscaba libros que tuvieran marcas de inspiración. Si un libro procedía de Dios, uno esperaría que reflejara la naturaleza de Dios y otros textos inspirados previamente. El texto, por tanto, debe reflejar la belleza y la excelencia de Dios (Salmo 19:7-10). Como comentó Jerónimo en una ocasión sobre un texto del Nuevo Testamento, se trata de un “documento que tiene en sí mismo toda la belleza del Evangelio”, que es la “marca de su inspiración”.[8]
Más aún, el texto irá acompañado de un poder transformador. En otras palabras, el texto no es sólo palabras en una página. El texto es “vivo y activo” (Heb 4:12). Justino Mártir comentó: “Porque poseen un tremendo poder en sí mismos, y son suficientes para inspirar temor a aquellos que se desvían del camino de la rectitud; mientras que el más dulce descanso se les da a quienes hacen una práctica diligente de ellos”.[9] Ireneo también afirmó que los Evangelios están siempre “exhalando inmortalidad por todos lados y vivificando a los hombres de nuevo.”[10] Es decir, la iglesia primitiva reconoció que ciertos textos trajeron salvación y buenas obras en la vida de la iglesia.
El texto no sólo poseerá cierta belleza y poder, sino que será armonioso con otras Escrituras autorizadas. Por esta razón, la iglesia rechazó libros como 2 Macabeos que sugiere que podemos ofrecer sacrificios y oraciones por los muertos (2 Macabeos 12:43-46). También rechazaron los textos gnósticos (Evangelio de Felipe, Evangelio de la Verdad, Evangelio de Pedro, etc.) porque socavaban todo el Antiguo Testamento. Además rechazaron el Evangelio de Tomás que tiene a Jesús diciendo: “Mira, yo la guiaré (María) para que sea masculina, para que ella también se convierta en un espíritu viviente parecido a los hombres. Porque toda mujer que se hace masculina entrará en el reino de los cielos” – un claro repudio de Génesis 1-2.
Así, como señaló Ireneo, “toda la Escritura, que nos ha sido dada por Dios, la encontraremos perfectamente consistente”.[11] Y como declaró Justino Mártir: “Estoy totalmente convencido de que ninguna Escritura se contradice con otra”.[12]
En resumen, la iglesia solo recibió textos que llevaban las marcas de la inspiración divina. Estas marcas incluían cierta belleza, poder y armonía, indicando que Dios era su autor definitivo.
Recepción Universal
Finalmente, solo los libros que fueron universalmente recibidos por la iglesia obtuvieron estatus canónico. Esto significa que los libros como Primero de Enoc, que solo unas pocas iglesias pequeñas recibieron, no recibieron estatus de autoridad. Después de todo, Jesús dice: “Mis ovejas oyen mi voz, y yo las conozco, y me siguen” (Juan 10:27). Por lo tanto, podríamos esperar que la iglesia universal llegara a algún tipo de consenso cuando se tratara de sus textos bíblicos. Y esto es exactamente lo que encontramos en la iglesia primitiva.
Desde el siglo II, la Iglesia reconoció un grupo básico de libros canónicos que incluía los cuatro Evangelios, los Hechos, las cartas de Pablo, Hebreos, 1 Juan, 1 Pedro y el Apocalipsis. Este consenso se refleja en varios Padres de la Iglesia (Ireneo, Orígenes, Clemente de Alejandría, Tertuliano), así como en el Canon Muratoriano. En el siglo IV, el resto del canon fue reconocido de forma universal, como se refleja en Eusebio (325 d. C.), Atanasio (367 d. C.) y los concilios de Hipona (393 d. C.) y Cartago (397 d. C.).
Una cuadrícula canónica
Al considerar los tres atributos canónicos, queda claro que la Iglesia primitiva filtró los libros a través de una especie de cuadrícula canónica para ayudarles a reconocer los textos autorizados. Solo los libros que poseen los tres atributos alcanzaron el estado canónico. Considera la siguiente tabla. Observa que tanto Marcos como Romanos poseen los tres atributos, mientras que el Evangelio de Tomás no posee ninguno. Obsérvese también que el Pastor de Hermes posee parcialmente uno de los atributos en la medida en que es un texto ortodoxo. Sin embargo, carece de los otros dos atributos:
Notas:
[1] Harry Y. Gamble, The New Testament Canon, 57.
[2] Tomado de Michael Kruger, Question of the Canon.
[3] N. T. Wright, New Testament and the People of God, 217.
[4] Estas están ligeramente modificados de la lista de Michael Kruger en Canon Revisited.
[5] Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2.
[6] Eusbebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.12.3.
[7] Muratorian Fragment, line 67.
[8] Jerome, Prologue to Commentary on Philemon.
[9] Justino Mártir, Dialogue with Trypho, 8.2.
[10] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8.
[11] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.28.3.
[12] Justino Mártir, Dialogue with Trypho, 65.1.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure tiene una maestría en Artes de la Universidad Furman y una maestría en Divinidades del Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. Actualmente es candidato a Doctor en Ministerio en el Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. También sirve como pastor en: Grace Bible Church en Moore, SC.
Blog Original: https://bit.ly/3tbnmat
Traducido por Mónica Pirateque
Editado por Jennifer Chávez
5 STEPS TO LIVING A JOY FILLED LIFE
Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Jason Jimenez
In a recent conversation with a Christian friend, he shared how several unexpected killjoys had sprung up in his life and dragged him down to a dark place. Since then, my friend has struggled to find joy in his life.
What about you? Are you finding it hard to be joyful in life?
The reality is, we could all use more joy in our lives. Which leads me to share with you the first of five steps to living a more joyful life.
The first step is to seek joy from God.
Joy is a gift from God. It doesn’t come from people or objects in the world. You might get temporary relief or happiness. But the joy the Bible speaks of is so much more. As we read in the Bible, joy has to do with a deep state of gladness, cheer, and contentment. In the Lexham Bible Dictionary, “joy” is “closely related to gladness and happiness, although joy is more a state of being than an emotion; a result of choice.”
David declared that it’s in the presence of God that there is “fullness of joy” (Ps. 16:11). In Nehemiah 8:10, we read that we find strength in “the joy of the Lord.” In Galatians 5:22, Paul lists “joy” as a byproduct of the Holy Spirit.
If you want more joy in life—look no further. Look to God.
The second step is to acknowledge and cherish the eternal blessings you have as a child of God:
The third step is bringing balance into your life.
You’ve heard the saying, don’t sweat the small stuff. It’s next to impossible to appreciate the joy you have as a Christian if you live a hurried-up life filled with stress. In the book of Philippians, Paul writes, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (4:6-7).
We can’t overlook that Paul wrote the words “don’t be anxious” while in prison. Despite the various trials and the ups and downs, Paul still found joy amid some of his darkest hours. That, my friend, is joy!
It would be great that every time you feel worried or anxious, you simply pray for it to go away, and just like that, it’s gone! But, as you very well know, that’s not reality. We may not like it, but it’s in hardships and feeling depressed that God’s joy is made so much more real to us.
So, offer up prayers of thanksgiving to help eliminate any worry or stress that might be preventing you from living a life of joy.
The fourth step involves setting boundaries with certain people who suck the joy out of you.
Setting boundaries is a hard thing to implement for anyone. Starting with the fact that no one likes confrontation. And secondly, most of the “joy suckers” in our lives are people we have no choice but to be around. They can be a family member—a co-worker.
So, the obvious thing is not to overreact and pull away from everybody. What you want to do is assess your relationships and determine who is the most self-centered, critical, argumentative, and who tends to push your buttons. In a nutshell, who leaves you feeling drained and discouraged most of the time?
Once you’ve realized who the “joy suckers” are, the next challenge is to draw the necessary boundaries to protect you from allowing this person to steal your joy. As mentioned in step one, joy is a choice. You may not always have a choice who you are around. But you do have a choice how you interact with them and they with you. So, make sure you bathe your relationships in prayer and seek wise counsel before setting certain boundaries.
The fifth step is to enjoy life today!
It’s easy to take for granted what we have in our lives. I’ll admit that when I get impatient with people or with work-related stuff, I can miss out on enjoying life. Just the other night, I told my wife how I needed not to lose sight of enjoying the simple moments in life. Whether it be throwing the football with one of my kids or sipping a cup of coffee with a friend. I need to be more sensitive and aware of counting my blessings every day.
How about you? What are some blessings you’ve received from God that you need to appreciate more?
As you seek to implement these five steps to achieving a more joyful life, seek to add the prayer from Paul below to enrich your motivation.
“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” Romans 15:13
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jimenez is President of STAND STRONG Ministries and author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more info, check out www.standstrongministries.org.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/3N574aM
What Words Tell Us About Culture
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Scott Reynolds
What gives words meaning? Is it the author, the words themselves, the reader, or something else altogether? At different points in history all the above had a place of authority giving words their meaning. However, as the world changes and the power behind words change it causes great change in culture. Exploring the power of words is an extension of exploring the power of culture and who has the power to shape culture.
Jacques Derrida and the Postmodern Revolution
Jacques Derrida stands at the center of the radical postmodern literary revolution. He is burdened by the idea that anyone can use a text to position authority over someone else. The idea of equality found at the table of interpretation includes more than accepting other readers who might use it for their own advantage but also includes the reader’s equality with the author and the text itself. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding. His goal was to move beyond the written text and the spoken word, and into the fabric of metaphysics, methodology, and the morals of meaning.
Three Ages of Transition in Literary Interpretation
Kevin Vanhoozer uses the work of Derrida to highlight the three ages of transition in literary interpretation. The division of his work follows the critical analysis of the three ages: the age of the author, the age of the text, and the age of the reader. Each section explores the historicity of the age, the mentality of the reader regarding truth, as well as the issues that contributed to advancing a transition away from the prima facie interpretation of objective truth or the author’s meaning found in the text. As Vanhoozer looks at Derrida’s work he is asking the reader to decide whether the meaning of a text is objectively fixed by the author or by the text itself, or whether it maintains the freedom to vary from reader to reader.
Pre-Modern, Modern, and Postmodern Periods
If the three interpretational methodology transitions are broken down historically, they seem to follow the transitions of Western society through the pre-modern, modern, and postmodern periods. The pre-modern period is defined by absolute authority. The reader had limited access to the written word and any word written carried the full weight and authority of the author. The modern period ushered in the age of enlightenment and with it an explosion in education. The quest for knowledge placed an emphasis on the reader’s exegetical skills to interpret the text. The authority no longer rested with the intentions of the author but in the educated hermeneutical methodology of the reader. The 20th century ushered in postmodern era, after two world wars, Western culture began questioning all authority. The institutions of government, marriage, the church, and education all became vulnerable to the removal of objective authority. Regarding the literary interpretation of the postmodern reader Vanhoozer states a word “interprets with a no reality principle (the way it is), only a pleasure principle (the way I want it to be).” The foundational question in the theology of literary interpretation is authority. The battle over authority is critical in how a person approaches interpretation and how they determine whose interpretation is correct.
Reformation and the Battle of Interpretation
Historically, the battle of the Reformation was in part a battle of interpretation. Luther and others questioned Papal Infallibility or the Soul Inerrancy of the Pope. The reformers rejected that the Pope had interpretational inerrancy. The interpretational transition of the Reformation saw the authority move from a single point of Soul Inerrancy to the acceptance of a new idea called Soul Competency. However, as the reformers allowed the average reader access to the Bible, they would still hold the reader to the belief of determinacy in their interpretations. Everyone was welcomed to study and work to interpret the Scriptures as long as they realized that being Soul Competent meant that you could find God’s meanings in the Scriptures. It did not mean that you were Soul Inerrant, meaning that you could wrongly interpret the Scriptures.
Calvin’s goal in interpretation, was clear; “It is the first business of an interpreter to let his author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.” In contrast is Derrida’s “death of an author” which is a direct consequence of Nietzsche’s announcement of the death of God. The death of God means the death of absolute authority. The current state of cultural affairs has drawn an increasing number of biblical scholars to adopt and advocate strategies for translating the Bible, influenced by the work of Derrida. Derrida and his deconstructionist have correctly analyzed the postmodern culture and have declared victory by bracketing out orthodox Christian belief. They also believe that once a text is freed from the author, it can become a canvas on which a reader can exercise their own creativity. The death of the author was critical in moving from premodern to modern, and from modern to postmodern culture.
Spiritual Implications for Biblical Authority
What are the spiritual implications for removing the biblical author’s authority? “The answer is brief but massive: biblical authority is undone. The un-doers effectively strip the Bible of any stable meaning so that it cannot state a fact, issue a command, or make a promise.” The death of the author gave rise to the power of the words themselves. The transition is tame compared to the problems with postmodern philosophies; however, some believed that commentaries were being developed and could be used by anyone to push an agenda on the text. Richard Coggins feared that commentaries would become weapons of propaganda. Today, the church is the living consequences of these transitions and postmodern relativism has left the current culture in a legitimate crisis in biblical understanding.
DETERMINISM
Determinism means that a text has a definite meaning, one that can be qualified and defined. The next step down from determinacy is textuality, “where the autonomous text offers no more resources for limiting the play of meaning than does the strangulated voice of the anonymous author.” Even those modern scholars who helped refine interpretation theory as a science of the text could not stop the downward spiral of deconstruction. Eventually, the second pillar fell, and society experienced the death of the text and with it the possibility of literary knowledge.
POSTMODERN THINKING
Postmodern thinkers have deemed it unnecessary to investigate truths about the world, especially when it comes to epistemology. They believed “the light of reason is no longer needed for the growth of knowledge.” The ideal of objective knowledge is no longer a truth to pursue but a myth to debunk. These thinkers reject objective knowledge found in a text due to bias found in a theoretical or interpretive framework: “knowledge in the postmodern world is always contextual, always perspectival, always relative to some point of view or other.”
LOGOCENTRISM
Some postmodern thinkers like Paul Ricoeur are not as radical as Derrida in their attack on logocentrism, the catchall term used to describe Western thinkers who are preoccupied with meaning, rationality, and truth. Derrida believes that having a stable point of commonality outside of language, like reason, revelation, or even Platonic ideals, feeds the traditional view of authoritative truth. He uses the name “grammatology” for a study of writing that is no longer governed by logocentrism.
POINTS OF FAILURE
Derrida’s views create a tension, which he classified as a battle between what a text wants to say and what it is systematically constrained to say. “As a deconstructionist he is able to identify points of failure in a system, points at which it is able to feign coherence only by excluding and forgetting that which it cannot assimilate, that which is ‘other’ to it.” Derrida repeatedly finds the best way to escape problems with his belief system is to simply not recognize those issues that will not assimilate into his views. Those authoritative views like objective and absolute truth found in the Scriptures are simply deemed to live outside his interpretative community. When interpretation moves from a methodology used to understanding a text to the primary purpose of the text then all authority is stripped away and only the current relevant meaning of a closed interpretative community remains.
Use of Metaphors
The use of metaphors in ancient writings has leant to the ever-evolving creation of meaning. “It is one thing to interpret metaphors, however, and quite another to interpret metaphorically.” Derrida held that there is nothing outside the text and therefore the whole world is a metaphor. Language is a collection of signs used to promote different views about the world. He believed that the “metaphoricity is the logic of contamination and the contamination of logic.” The metaphorical indeterminacy allows a reader to choose metaphors about God and his relation to the world that best fit and promote their worldview about God.
Derrida’s deconstructionist views on reason, authoritative revelation, and objective truth all stem from his radical views about authority in general. Disillusioned with authority, he states that “reason is what serves our ethico-political interest. Behind rationality lies values (ethics) and power (politics). Deconstruction is a kind of sophistic acid that strips away the layers of rhetoric that disguise values and truths.” The goal was nothing short of incoherent relativism in a world freed from oppressive authorities.
The third age of criticism he explores the transition from textuality to contextuality. “The reader is not a canvas to be molded but an active participate in developing meaning to a text based on what the reader brings to it. Those looking to deconstruct meaning, study the effects of a reader’s social, historical, and theological bents on their personal interpretation of a text. The idea of a reader-response methodology to interpretation opened the door to criticism from many conservatives. The radical reader-response critics continue to reject the traditional role of the reader and insist that the text conform to the reading instead of the reading conforming to the text.
The battle for interpretative freedom and true meaning has deep cross-cultural implications knowing that both moderns and post-moderns are claiming the high ground in the battle for literary theory. Defending the position of the author, Vanhoozer refers to the post-modern reader’s use of a text as a ventriloquist’s dummy serving as the conduit to voice their own opinion. He recognizes that the current age of criticism is defined by egotistical entitlement that simply refuses to look to the truth found in the past but instead is committed to the unintelligible ideas of their own voice.
Stanley Fish has declared, “The authorizing agency of interpretational authority is not the author, the text, or even the reader, but the interpretative community.” The worldview of the crowd dictates the range of what is or is not an acceptable interpretation of a text. A conservative might say, I believe it means X, (X being the traditional, authoritative interpretation), but if the culture is bent towards a different liberal view, then having the view of X is outside the range of an acceptable interpretation of the text. The implications of Fish’s conclusion is that truth is demoted from its prior status as timeless and absolute to what the mob perceives is good and acceptable in this moment. Truth, metaphysically, morally, and meaning simply becomes a label we assign to our beliefs. As along as a reader’s beliefs fit inside the acceptable worldview of the interpretative community, then any interpretation that seem right to the interpretative community at the moment or given to advance their beliefs is deemed as good and true.
Derrida’s Deconstructionism
Derrida’s deconstructionism’s underlying purpose is promoting and supporting an inconsistent ideology with the goal of removing institutional authority. As the chart shows the interpretative plurality speaks about approaching a text with different interpretative methods. The idea is that it might take multiple interpretative approaches to get a thick description of meaning out of a text. In contrast, hermeneutical pluralism maintains conflicting interpretations are viewed as equally valid. The deconstructionist represents a small, but growing, number of people who truly believe that a determinate meaning cannot be known from a text. When asked whether a determinate meaning can be determined, the majority of people think yes, even if they will not say so publicly. The power of their interpretive community and the perceived oppression by traditional institutions rallies the average reader to forsake logic and follow an inconsistent ideology. Derrida’s criticism of literary theory includes a deconstruction of understanding.
Vanhoozer has observed how the work of orality in Rabbinical Sages to create independent and authoritative discourse outside the historical norms shows great similarities to Jacques Derrida’s deconstructionism: “Derrida attends only to the signifiers, not the signified.” In other words, like the rabbis, Derrida is focused on someone’s speaking and has no concern for what they are saying. The social implications of Derrida’s deconstructionism can be seen in the plurality of Israel’s monotheistic culture. Thus, “The Alexandrian Therapeutae, the Yakhad of Qumran, the Pharisees, and the primitive Jesus-communities, all appear to have been conversionist associations formed to pursue a collective transformative discipline under the guidance of persuasive teachers.” Vanhoozer promotes critical realism as a middle position between letterism (epistemological absolutism) and deconstructionism (epistemological relativism).
Pre-Deconstructionism: The Next Step?
Could Pre-Deconstructionism be the next step after post-modernism? Premodern was bound by authoritative religions, modernism is bound by scholastic academia, postmodern is bound by the individual, and pre-deconstructionism is bound by the interpretative community. Interpretative Communities could be the next phase of cultural evolution, returning words to premodern authoritative positions, this time not held by the church but multiplied by mobs of interpretative communities.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Scott Reynolds earned his D.Min from New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. In addition to his doctoral pursuits, he has earned degrees from Troy University. Dr. Reynolds has traveled the world and has served as an archaeologist with some of the biggest names in the field. He brings a passion for biblical studies, biblical history, and an expertise in archaeological studies. Dr. Reynolds is a retired pastor and church planter. He has taught at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and now is now working archaeological digs in a pursuit of discovering the apologetic properties of archaeology. Scott and his wife Lori have two grown children, one granddaughter and a very spoiled dog.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/38nofpb
Nihilism and Mass Shootings
PodcastDr. Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute joins Frank to discuss the worldview contributing to the increase in shootings over the last couple of decades. What is nihilism? What do these incidents tell us about the spiritual and moral condition of our nation? All people, from atheist to Christian, are rightfully horrified by these events, but not all worldviews can account for objective evil. Why not? Where do we go from here? If God is the answer, why does He allow these terrible tragedies to occur in the first place?
Our friend Dr. Michael Brown provides a history of school shootings in America since 1999 here: When It Comes to School Shootings, America Really Has a Deeply Tragic Problem – The Stream
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
Cómo obtuvimos nuestra Biblia: el canon del Antiguo Testamento y los apócrifos
EspañolPor Ryan Leasure
Esta es la tercera entrega de una serie de nueve partes sobre cómo se formó nuestra Biblia. La primera parte trataba sobre la inspiración e inerrancia de las Escrituras. La segunda parte explicaba la formación y preservación de los textos del Antiguo Testamento. En este artículo se abordarán cuestiones relacionadas con el canon del Antiguo Testamento y los apócrifos.
Canon
Antes de continuar con el tema, primero debemos establecer a qué nos referimos cuando hablamos del “canon”. No nos referimos, por supuesto, a las armas de épocas pasadas. Sino que canoson n remite a una antigua forma de medir con una vara parecida al junco o caña y era empleada como un patrón infalible tal como lo es una regla de un metro. El término se aplicó posteriormente a los textos bíblicos que la Iglesia recibió en su colección de libros autorizados.
La Tanakh
El acomodo que los judíos le dieron al Antiguo Testamento fue y es completamente diferente de nuestra manera típica de ordenarlo. Parece ser que desde hace mucho tiempo los judíos dividieron en tres partes el canon hebreo. Esta triple división se le conoce como Tanakh basado en las tres divisiones —Torah (Ley), Nevi’im (Profetas) y Ketuvim (Escritos). Esta última división a veces se le llama “Los Salmos” ya que los Salmos fueron el primer y más grande libro entre Los Escritos y a menudo se toma como representación del conjunto. Además, hay que tener en cuenta que los judíos combinaron varios libros. Así que el canon judío contiene los mismos libros que las Biblias protestantes, pero su Biblia solo tiene veinticuatro libros en lugar de treinta y nueve. Considere el siguiente desglose desde el Génesis hasta las Crónicas:
(Torah)
(Nevi’im)
(Ketuvim)
La Septuaginta (250-150 A.C)
Después de que Alejandro Magno helenizara el mundo conocido, los eruditos judíos se dieron cuenta que era necesario traducir al griego las Escrituras hebreas para que más personas pudieran leerlas. La leyenda cuenta que setenta y dos traductores judíos (seis de cada una de las doce tribus), trabajaron durante setenta y dos días, cada uno de manera independiente tradujo el texto del hebreo al griego, y las setenta y dos traducciones resultaron ser exactamente iguales. Por ello la traducción se conoció como la Septuaginta (en latín septuaginta significa “setenta”) y se le representa con los números romanos LXX.
Vale la pena mencionar un par de detalles acerca de la Septuaginta. En primer lugar, esta traducción cambió el orden de los libros al orden con el que estamos más familiarizados hoy en día. Es decir, cambió la triple división de la Tanakh y acomodó los libros como hoy los tenemos; ley, históricos, poéticos, profetas mayores y profetas menores. Además, la septuaginta también incluía los Apócrifos.
Los Apócrifos
Los Apócrifos son aproximadamente una docena de libros judíos que se escribieron durante el periodo intertestamentario. Estos libros tratan sobre historia, poesía, literatura de sabiduría y profecía. Probablemente los más famosos libros apócrifos son Primer y Segundo libro de los Macabeos. Estos libros narran las rebeliones judías y la recuperación del templo que estaba en manos de los sirios. Aunque estas obras tienen un gran valor histórico, también contienen material discutible. Esto lo podemos observar en Segundo de Macabeos donde enseña que los santos en el cielo interceden por los que están en la Tierra (15:11-16) y que las oraciones y sacrificios pueden ofrecerse en favor de los muertos (12:39-46). Los romanos católicos usan este texto para dar validez a las creencias sobre el purgatorio y la práctica de indulgencias.
Tobías, otro libro apócrifo, cuenta la historia pintoresca de un devoto judío en el exilio quien al estar dormido pierde la vista por la suciedad de los pájaros . Su esposa Sara, también tiene sus propias dificultades. Un demonio ha matado a siete de sus anteriores esposos en la noche de bodas. Y Dios envía al ángel Rafael para ayudar a Tobías y a Sara a conquistar al demonio. Al final usan el corazón y el hígado de un pez para ahuyentar al demonio de la cámara nupcial. La historia termina cuando el hijo de Tobías frota los ojos de su padre con la bilis del pescado para devolverle la vista. Es un relato bastante extraño.
Otro libro, conocido como Judith, describe la liberación del pueblo judío por parte de Dios. En esta historia, Judith seduce al rey asirio para cortarle la cabeza mientras está aturdido por el alcohol. No tenemos evidencia de que esto en verdad haya acontecido. Además, este libro comete el error de ubicar a Nabucodonosor como rey de Asiria y no de Babilonia.
Otra colección de apócrifos incluyen al libro de Sirá (literatura de sabiduría similar a Proverbios), Baruc (que no escribió Baruc), Sabiduría de Salomón (que no escribió Salomón), y complementos al libro de Daniel (La Historia de Susana, La Historia de Bel y el Dragón).
¿Por qué La Biblia no debe incluir Los Apócrifos?
Probablemente estás familiarizado con los debates Protestantes-Católicos-Ortodoxos sobre la posibilidad de incluir Los Apócrifos en las Biblias de hoy en día. En el espacio restante, me gustaría ofrecer cinco razones por las que no creo que la Biblia deba incluir los apócrifos.
1 Los apócrifos reconocen que los profetas no hablaban en su época
Considera los siguientes textos de 1º Macabeos.
Observe cómo estos tres versículos indican que Dios no hablaba a través de profetas durante su tiempo.
2 Los judíos nunca aceptaron los apócrifos como escrituras.
Considera la siguiente cita del historiador judío del siglo I Josefo:
Josefo señala que después de la era de Artajerjes (465-424 a.C.), los judíos continuaron escribiendo libros (los Apócrifos), pero estos libros no estaban a la altura de las Escrituras, porque los profetas dejaron de hablar.
Además, el Talmud babilónico, que es una colección sagrada de tradiciones rabínicas, registra lo siguiente “después de que murieron los últimos profetas Hageo, Zacarías y Malaquías, el Espíritu Santo se apartó de Israel” (Yoma 98). En otras palabras, la revelación especial cesó después de la época de estos profetas. Por lo tanto, no debemos considerar Los Apócrifos como Escrituras, ya que fueron posteriores a estos profetas.
Finalmente, alrededor del año 90 d.C., un Concilio de líderes judíos se reunió en Jamnia para decidir cómo reconstruir el judaísmo después de la caída de Jerusalén y su templo. Al discutir sobre sus libros sagrados, sólo reafirmaron la práctica universal de todos los judíos de que los apócrifos no pertenecían a su Biblia.
3 El Nuevo Testamento nunca se refiere a los apócrifos como escrituras
Los autores del Nuevo Testamento citan pasajes del Antiguo Testamento cientos de veces. Regularmente sus citas son antecedidas por frases como “así está escrito” o “las Escrituras dicen.” Considera los siguientes ejemplos:
Ni siquiera una vez los autores del Nuevo Testamento hicieron algo similar con los textos Apócrifos. Esta omisión es considerable a pesar del hecho que los autores del Nuevo Testamento citaban de la Septuaginta la cual contenía los Apócrifos. Lo que significa que los autores del Nuevo Testamento tenían conocimiento de los textos Apócrifos. Y ellos simplemente no se refirieron a estos textos como Escrituras.
4 Jesús afirmó la triple división del Tanaj
Dos citas del evangelio de Lucas nos muestran que Jesús creía en un canon cerrado del Antiguo Testamento que no incluía los Apócrifos. Observa Lucas 24:44 LBLA.
En este texto Jesús hace una clara afirmación a la división en tres partes del Antiguo Testamento- los Apócrifos no son incluidos. Toma en cuenta también Lucas 11:51 LBLA.
Al hablar de Abel (el primer mártir bíblico) y Zacarías (el último mártir bíblico), Jesús demuestra que el canon del Antiguo Testamento finaliza con el libro de Crónicas (en el orden tradicional de la Tanaj). Vale la pena anotar que muchos mártires murieron en el libro de los Macabeos. Jesús no los menciona porque no consideraba a los Macabeos como parte de su Biblia.
5 La Iglesia Católica no concedió autoridad a los apócrifos hasta más tarde
La lista canónica del Antiguo Testamento más antigua de un cristiano procede de Melito de Sardis (170 d. C.). En su canon no tomó en cuenta los Apócrifos. La lista canónica que hizo Orígenes a mediados del siglo tercero también excluye a los Apócrifos. Además Atanasio, Cirilo de Jerusalén, Gregorio Nacianceno y el Concilio de Laodicea descartan de su canon los libros Apócrifos.
Se cree que en algún punto del siglo cuarto, los Apócrifos comenzaron a ganar aceptación en algunos sectores cosa demostrada por algunas listas canónicas (San Agustín, el Concilio de Hipona) y los manuscritos bíblicos (Códice Sinaítico, Códice Vaticano). Está claro que San Agustín persuadió a su amigo Jerónimo de incluir los Apócrifos en la Vulgata Latina del año 404 d. C. Dicho esto, Jerónimo hizo la siguiente introducción a la sección de los Apócrifos.
Jerónimo hizo una clara distinción entre los textos bíblicos y los Apócrifos. La Escritura estableció la doctrina de la Iglesia. Los Apócrifos eran utilizados para la mera edificación.
Durante los siguientes mil años, la Iglesia Católica difícilmente estuvo de acuerdo con los Apócrifos. William de Ockham, influyente teólogo medieval, se hizo eco de los sentimientos de Jerónimo cuando escribió que los textos apócrifos “son leídos para la edificación del pueblo, pero no para establecer doctrinas.”[3] Incluso el cardenal Cayetano, un principal opositor de los reformistas protestantes y designado por el Papa León señaló:
A pesar de estar lejos de llegar a estar unificados, el Concilio de Trento le concedió a los textos Apócrifos el estatus de canónicos en lo que claramente se ve como un movimiento de Contrareforma.
Dirigiéndonos hacia el Nuevo.
En la siguiente publicación llegaremos al Nuevo Testamento. En concreto, el artículo abordará dos preguntas clave.. En primer lugar, ¿habría esperado la Iglesia primitiva más libros de las Escrituras? Y segundo, ¿qué criterios utilizó la iglesia primitiva para considerar que ciertos libros tenían autoridad Escritural y otros no?
[1] Josephus, Against Apion 1.38-41.
[2] F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, 91-92.
[3] Citado por B. F. Westcott, The Bible in the Church, (London, 1901), 211.
[4] Ibid., 253.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure tiene una Maestría en Artes de la Universidad Furman y una Maestría en Divinidad del Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. Hoy en día, se está postulando al Doctorado en Ministerio en el Seminario Teológico Bautista del Sur. También ejerce como pastor en la Iglesia Grace Bible en Moore, SC.
Fuente Original Del Blog: https://bit.ly/3z36sP2
Traducido por Gustavo Camarillo
Editado por Yatniel Vega García
These Viral Pro-Choice Memes Miss the Point and Fail the Test of Logic
Culture CrossExamined, Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Natasha Crain
With the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion potentially pointing to Roe v. Wade being overturned, social media is on fire with pro-choice advocates sharing memes intended to portray abortion “rights” as necessary, important, and even morally good.
For those of us who believe intentionally killing preborn human beings is murder (the unjustified taking of innocent human life), it’s absolutely heartbreaking to see so many people passionately advocating for the right to commit such an act. In response, many Christians have taken to private social media groups to share examples of pro-choice memes and discuss how best to respond.
While it’s not necessary to respond to every post you come across (there aren’t enough hours in the day!), I’m heartened to see so many Christians wanting to address what they’re seeing. That said, I’ve noticed that many people’s responses are missing the key point of the debate as much as the memes themselves are.
As such, I wanted to write this article to respond to several viral pro-choice memes and show how to maintain focus on the core issue without getting pulled into irrelevant other subjects. But first, a critical distinction must be understood.
Distinguishing Worldview Disagreements from Logically Fallacious Red Herrings
Imagine that you come across someone posting the following on social media: “I’m an atheist. I do not believe anything exists beyond the natural world, and therefore I do not believe in the existence of objective morality. Nothing is morally right or wrong, so I’m pro-choice because I believe there’s nothing wrong with ending the life of an unborn baby.”
In this case, the pro-choice advocate is merely being consistent within their own naturalistic worldview. They believe morality is only a matter of opinion, given their view of the nature of the universe. If a Christian is pro-life as a logical outworking of their biblical worldview and an atheist is pro-choice as a logical outworking of their naturalistic worldview, the ensuing conversation isn’t so much about abortion as it is about their respective underlying worldview assumptions.
Worldview-level discussions about the nature of the universe, the nature of humanity, and the corresponding rights (or lack of rights) held by preborn humans certainly transpire in some circles. And these worldview-level questions are ultimately what the debate comes down to.
But this is rarely the level of conversation floating to the top of social media.
In fact, I’ve seen virtually no pro-choice social media posts addressing these questions in popular discourse. Rather, emotion-driven memes carry the day—memes that are nearly always logically fallacious red herrings. In other words, they distract from the real issue with points completely irrelevant to the core (worldview) question at hand:
Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?
That’s it. That’s what the debate comes down to.
For clarity, the logic behind the answer for Christians with a biblical worldview is as follows:
With this in mind, let’s look at brief responses to eight of the most popular pro-choice memes circulating right now to see how to highlight the red herring and point back to the real issue. As we’ll see, they all fail to address the core question: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 1: If you really care about babies, you should be working to provide extensive government and/or business support for their lives (and their families’ lives) after birth (and for much longer).
Social media example:
If intentionally killing a preborn baby is morally wrong, whatever a person does or does not do to support a child and/or their parents does not change the morality of the action itself.
Virtually everyone, for example, would agree that rape is morally wrong. If a person opposed to rape does absolutely nothing for rape victims, we still acknowledge that their opposition to rape is the morally correct position to hold. Logically speaking, the morality of an action must be evaluated on its own basis. The core question remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?
[Avoid the trap: Don’t try to prove your motivations in response to the wording “if it was about babies…” If someone wants to question your motivations, they’re unlikely to be convinced otherwise by your words. The morality of abortion has nothing to do with any individual’s motivation for holding a given position. Also, don’t start breaking down each good we should supposedly provide (formula, diapers, etc.) to show why it’s unnecessary, unfeasible, or already sufficiently provided. All you’re doing is playing into the red herring.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 2: Being “pro-life” means you should agree to a bundle of other social/moral positions assumed to be the best for human beings.
Social media example:
This is logically quite similar to the first meme, but with a twist that often confuses people: equivocation on the term “pro-life” (equivocation is the use of ambiguous language—typically using the same word with two different meanings).
Pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate, means that a person is opposed to abortion. Here the writer wants to make the political point that if you really care about “life,” you’ll agree with a bundle of other positions (ones they assume to be the best life-sustaining positions). But Roe v. Wade is not about a bundle of issues related to human life. This is a question of one specific human life issue.
Again, intentionally killing preborn babies is either morally wrong or it’s not. Whether someone takes a morally right or wrong position on any other issue is irrelevant to whether they’ve taken a morally right or wrong position on abortion.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t start trying to defend that you really are pro “all life,” but that being pro “all life” doesn’t translate into supporting each of the particular positions listed. If you start trying to prove your pro “all life” credentials by getting into detailed discussions on all these other issues, you’re simply playing into the red herring.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 3: Caring about unborn babies is easier than caring about people already born.
Social media example:
The logic here is similar to that of the first two memes, but I wanted to include it because this one is especially popular, and it has a slightly different framing: It’s a “Christian” pastor presumably chastising fellow Christians for only caring about who is easiest to advocate for. Non-Christians of course like this because the accusation is coming from one of “our own.”
But regardless of who it’s coming from and regardless of how relatively easy or uneasy it is to advocate for any particular group, the morality of actions against that group remains the same.
That’s it. Even if advocating for the preborn were the easiest thing on earth relative to advocating for other groups, it doesn’t change whether intentionally killing those babies is morally wrong or not. If we’re talking about abortion laws, that’s the question that matters.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t get caught up in showing that this pastor is progressive and doesn’t hold a biblical view. That’s true, but the source of the comment is irrelevant. Also avoid debating how easy or uneasy it is to advocate for different groups—as I’ve shown here, that too is irrelevant.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 4: Babies born to parents who can’t afford them, don’t want them, or otherwise are unready for them are better off being aborted.
Social media example:
The basic logic here is that it’s better to kill a preborn human than to allow that human to be born into bad circumstances, ranging from poverty to abuse. But many humans live in and always have lived in bad—often terrible—circumstances regardless of whether their parents wanted them. The pro-choice advocate would almost certainly not say that we should kill every human who lives in or will live in a set of circumstances deemed to be insufficiently pleasant. Imagine the outrage if our society started pulling toddlers out of the homes of poor families to kill them! The only difference between that scenario and the one in the meme is that the child is already born.
Again, it’s either morally wrong or it’s not to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Whether a given human’s parents want to or are able to raise that human according to certain standards has nothing to do with whether killing them is right or wrong. We wouldn’t apply that logic to humans who are already born; there’s no logical reason to apply it before birth either.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t enter into debate about how good a child’s life can be even in bad circumstances. The morality of abortion doesn’t depend on how good or bad a child’s life turns out to be. That’s another red herring.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 5: Men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.
Social media example:
This idea comes in many different meme forms, but the basic logic is that men have no right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body because men can’t get pregnant. (As an aside, I’m not sure how long this argument can go unchecked today given that trans activists claim trans men–biological women–can be pregnant. Will feminists declare that there really are differences between trans men and biological men and allow trans men alone to speak, given their reproductive capabilities? Only time will tell.)
Once again, this avoids the question of the morality of abortion with an emotional red herring. Our society has laws against murder because we’ve collectively agreed that it’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being; our laws unashamedly restrain the freedom of citizens to kill one another. It’s no more “controlling,” therefore, to have restrictions on what would-be murderers do with their bodies to kill others than it is to have restrictions on what pregnant women do with their bodies to kill others. The only relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, and the morality of an action doesn’t depend on the gender of who makes the law. (As many people have pointed out, it was an all-male Supreme Court that passed Roe v. Wade in the first place, so by this logic, pro-choice people should reject that court decision as well.)
[Avoid the trap: Don’t get distracted by the claim that “conservative Christianity” is about controlling bodies. That’s just a jab at Christians. Focus on the “my body, my choice” logic, which quickly fails for the above reasons.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 6: No one has a right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn’t do with her body.
Social media example:
The logic here is identical to that of the last meme except it takes out the gender-specific language. Rather than “men have no right to tell women what to do with their body,” it’s “no one has a right to tell women what to do with their body.” Once again, we have all kinds of laws in society that restrict the use of one’s body to intentionally hurt or kill other humans. Abortion laws are not unique in telling someone what they can or can’t do with their body when it comes to other human lives.
The relevant question is whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being, not whether society is in a place to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their body. We already do that in all kinds of ways.
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 7: Legally restricting abortion is classist and racist.
Social media example:
I’m always shocked that someone would make this argument, but it always comes up, so let’s look at the logic: We should keep the intentional killing of preborn human beings legal because if we don’t, certain racial and economic groups will be better able to find illegal ways to kill babies than others. In other words, poor people and people of color won’t have equal opportunity to kill.
We simply do not apply this kind of thinking in other cases—we don’t make actions legal because some groups of people are better able to skirt the law! If we did that, we’d probably have no laws at all. As a society, we work to provide equal opportunity for good not for bad.
The question, therefore, remains: Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being? If it is, there’s no need to give people equal opportunity to do what’s wrong.
[Avoid the trap: Don’t go down the rabbit hole of discussing which groups of people do or do not need abortion “access”—no one needs access to a moral wrong.]
POPULAR PRO-CHOICE IDEA 8: There are all kinds of bad circumstances leading women to seek abortion, so we can’t and/or shouldn’t make blanket restrictions on it.
Social media example (this is a copy and paste post that is viral around Facebook):
I’ve saved this one for last because it’s like a capstone example for this article. I’ve seen so many Christians ask how to respond to this post, presumably because it looks so overwhelming. There are a dozen different types of cases given here, and the intent is clearly to confront the reader with too much to respond to. The writer wants to show that there are just too many difficult circumstances leading to a woman’s desire for abortion, so we shouldn’t make blanket restrictions; too many bad things exist that make abortion access necessary.
While the logical problems could be pointed out with each individual case (and I’ve seen people do that well), I think this is more simply and effectively dealt with by sticking with the high level logic the post is using: If difficult circumstances result in or from a human life being created, a woman needs the right to kill that preborn baby. To see the logical problem, apply that thinking to a human being already born…if difficult circumstances lead to one human wanting to kill another human, should we legalize that murder due to their difficult circumstances? As with an earlier meme, we don’t apply that logic in such cases. There’s no reason to apply it to the preborn either.
As one other logic point, to say that you’re not “pro-murdering babies” but are pro-women who want to be able to is a fallacy called distinction without difference. In other words, if you’re for women being able to kill a preborn baby, you’re “pro-(the ability to) murder babies.” Drawing a cursory distinction via word choice does not change the central issue of whether it’s morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being.
[Avoid the trap: There are certainly nuances to some of the cases listed here that could warrant further points. For example, in the case of Vanessa, the baby has already died; that’s not about abortion at all. However, most people posting this aren’t looking to get into conversation about the details. Their whole point is that there are too many considerations that warrant conversation, so we should leave the choice to women. In general, I’d recommend avoiding the trap of replying to each case and stick with the overall points of logic I described here.]
Christians are called to speak truth, but sometimes before we can even speak truth about the sanctity of life, we need to help people see the flawed logic of popular claims. Once we sweep away logical errors so we can clearly see the core question (Is it morally wrong to intentionally kill a preborn human being?), we of course need to be prepared to make the case for life. For help in doing so, I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf’s book The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek
The Case for Christian Activism MP3 Set, DVD Set, mp4 Download Set by Frank Turek
You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek
Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their kids with an understanding of how to make a case for and defend their faith in an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two apologetics books for parents: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha has an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and a certificate in Christian apologetics from Biola University. A former marketing executive and adjunct professor, she lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3MFd1uY
Is It Possible To Break Through Apathy?
Apologetics for Parents, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
The biggest obstacle to most apologetics efforts is apathy. While there are indeed some ardent atheists, usually the ones who take the time to write a response to posts like these, by and large the response of the average skeptic is to figuratively throw up their hands. They usually don’t take the time to research and consider a specific truth claim that is being made, or to counter some argument with evidence to show that an argument is false or mistaken. Nor do they try to convince you that their worldview is in fact true. Instead, most skeptics I’ve dealt with have developed a comfort level regarding the “unknowability” of ultimate things. They often argue that the fact that people disagree about such things – that a range of people have differing views on the subject- is itself evidence that no one can ever know whether there is a God, what He is about, or most importantly, what He may want of us. And so, they often don’t bother to try to investigate these things for themselves.
But if the Christian worldview is correct, such apathy is itself hazardous to one’s spiritual health. Recently, I tried to make this case in a conversation with a skeptic. It went something like this:
“Let’s say this was 70 years ago, and when I saw you, you were chain smoking cigarettes with your children always nearby. I know where medical science is headed, so I tell you that you are hurting yourself, and your kids. You respond that no one can really know such things; after all, you can point to doctors who advertise cigarettes and smoke them themselves, and you feel fine when you smoke. I point to other doctors who think that it’s really bad for you. You respond, ‘See, it’s a tie, so stop bothering me. Each person believes what they were raised to believe, or what they want to believe.”
“Do you see,” I asked, “that the conflict between the doctors should not lead you to conclude that neither is right, or that the answer is not knowable? As a friend, should I keep trying to bring you back to the truth about cigarettes, or should I let you persist in believing something that is, in the end, hurting you and your loved ones?”
My friend’s response was not unexpected. It went like this:
“Have you ever noticed how so many things are bad or wrong only at certain points in a cycle? Eat eggs, don’t eat eggs; give your kids soy, soy is bad; babies should sleep on their backs, no their stomachs, no their sides, no their backs etc., etc. When my daughter was born I would put her on her back to sleep and when I left the room my mother would put her on her side and when my mother left the room my grandmother would put her on her stomach. Over time the answer comes full circle. Why go around and around with it? What I am saying is not just throw up your hands and quit; what I am saying is that I do what feels right to me and that is the best I can do. Sometimes I listen to friends (and doctors) and sometimes I don’t. I think the ‘answer’ to many of these things is unknowable.”
Fair enough. Some things are unknowable, and for some things, it doesn’t really matter. But that of course is the point of being thoughtful: deciding which is which. So, I conceded that for some things, the right answer might be “it doesn’t matter.” For example, a child might be equally safe on her side or her back. Eggs or soy might be good for you or bad, depending on your health and how much you eat.
But for other things – like smoking – it will never “come back around.” Science will never say that smoking is good. It might say that it won’t necessarily kill you, but not that it will “balance your humours” like they said 200 years ago.”
“This analogy to smoking,” I continued, “is just one of many possible examples of the way consequences are built into the nature of reality. Take another example: if I embark upon a life of crime or drug addiction, I will eventually reap what I sow and the place I find myself might not be pleasant. We have the ability to foresee possible consequences through the use of our minds and imaginations. Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that this life will end at some point and to give some thought to what may await? Take my drugs example one step further – since you’re young and healthy, you might be able to abuse drugs for quite some time without being harmed. You might presently be indifferent to whether using drugs is a good or bad idea. But how smart a move would it be for you to say that you really don’t care what effect it will have on you in twenty years? Looking down the road to the consequence of our choices is something we all really need to do.”
“So,” I concluded, “the trick is, which is this? Are questions of eternal life like laying a child on her side, or are they more like smoking with my kids in the room or abusing drugs? I hope you see the answer matters. If you were smoking ten hours a day with your kids present, you would be harming them. Getting the right answer on that would matter. Getting the right answer on your relationship with God also matters, both to you and to the people you influence.”
I don’t think I persuaded her. As with smoking, not everyone bothers to read the warning label.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
The Top 20 Discoveries About Jesus Outside the Bible
PodcastWhat do we know about Jesus and the story of Jesus from outside the Bible? Much more than you might think! Archaeologist Dr. Titus Kennedy joins Frank to reveal the Top 20 discoveries about Jesus from outside the Bible.
Here they are:
Due to time constraints, we only were able to discuss the first 15 of these. But Frank and Titus kept recording! To see the remaining five, join our new CrossExamined Community which is a private online forum where believers can interact with us and one another without the fear of being canceled. After the program will be posted there.
To learn much more, get Dr. Kennedy’s excellent new book, Excavating the Evidence for Jesus: The Archaeology and History of Christ and the Gospels.
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
Cómo obtuvimos nuestra Biblia: la formación del Antiguo Testamento
EspañolPor Ryan Leasure
Este es el segundo de una serie de nueve artículos que abordan la cuestión de cómo obtuvimos nuestra Biblia. El último artículo trató la cuestión de la inspiración y la inerrancia. Esta semana nos centramos en la formación del Antiguo Testamento.
Cuestiones de introducción
A finales del siglo II, Tertuliano acuñó el término “Antiguo Testamento” para distinguir las Escrituras hebreas de las griegas. La palabra “testamento” significa simplemente “pacto”. El Antiguo Testamento, en su forma actual, consta de treinta y nueve libros y fue escrito por decenas de autores a lo largo de mil años.
En los primeros tiempos, los autores bíblicos utilizaron diferentes superficies de escritura. Grabaron sobre piedras (Éxodo 34:1; Josué 8:32), escribieron sobre yeso (Dt 27:2-3), grabaron sobre metal (Éxodo 28:36) y rayaron en tablillas enceradas (Isa 30:8; Hab 2:2). Para grabar en estas superficies, utilizaban plumas de hierro (Job 19:24; Jer 17:1) y otros estiletes.
Afortunadamente, los egipcios ya habían inventado un producto similar al papel utilizando plantas de papiro mucho antes de que Moisés escribiera la ley. Los autores bíblicos adoptaron esta tecnología de escritura con fines prácticos (Jer 36:23). Cuando el papiro no estaba disponible, los autores escribían en pieles de animales estiradas y secas llamadas pergaminos. Los escritores utilizaban cañas de tallo fino (Jer 8:8) que sumergían en tinta, que solía ser una mezcla de hollín y savia de árbol o aceite. Los escribas solían llevar estuches de tinta en el cinturón (Ez 9:2-3).
La primera escritura
El primer texto bíblico fue escrito por el propio Dios. Leemos en Éxodo 31:18: “Y cuando terminó de hablar con Moisés sobre el monte Sinaí, le dio las dos tablas del testimonio, tablas de piedra, escritas por el dedo de Dios“(LBLA). Esas mismas tablas se guardaron luego en el Arca de la Alianza junto con una vasija con maná y la vara de Aarón (Dt 10:5; Hb 9:4).
Más tarde, Moisés recopilaría los escritos de Dios en el Pentateuco junto con sus otros escritos. Tenemos indicios de que Moisés escribió el Pentateuco por etapas y no todo a la vez. En Éxodo 24:4 se lee: ” Y Moisés escribió todas las palabras del Señor.(LBLA)”. En Éxodo 17:14 se lee: “ Entonces dijo el Señor a Moisés: Escribe esto en un libro para que sirva de memorial, y haz saber a Josué que yo borraré por completo la memoria de Amalec de debajo del cielo.” (LBLA)
Los académicos debaten cómo aprendió Moisés el contenido del Génesis. Algunos sugieren que lo aprendió en el Monte Sinaí a través de una revelación divina. Otros creen que se transmitió a través de la tradición oral. Y otros creen que fue una combinación de ambos.
Etapas de la escritura
Como se ha señalado anteriormente, el Antiguo Testamento no se escribió de una sola vez, sino a lo largo de mil años. Puede ser útil pensar en el desarrollo del Antiguo Testamento en cuatro etapas.
La primera etapa fue en el Monte Sinaí, cuando Moisés escribió la Ley. Al principio, el Pentateuco funcionaba como el canon judío de las Escrituras. De hecho, Moisés ordena ” No añadiréis nada a la palabra que yo os mando, ni quitaréis nada de ella, para que guardéis los mandamientos del Señor vuestro Dios que yo os mando.” Dt 4:2 (LBLA). A lo largo de cientos de años se escribieron otros libros, pero su inclusión en el canon tardó algún tiempo. Los libros de Moisés, sin embargo, tuvieron autoridad desde el principio.
La segunda etapa de los depósitos de revelación se produjo durante la transición de la teocracia a la monarquía. Durante esa época, los autores escribieron varios libros históricos (Josué, Jueces, Rut, Samuel), poesía (Salmos) y literatura de sabiduría (Proverbios, Eclesiastés, Cantar de los Cantares).
La tercera etapa fue en la época del exilio babilónico. Varios profetas escribieron durante este período (Isaías, Miqueas, Oseas, Jonás, Amós, Joel, etc.).
La cuarta y última etapa fue el regreso del exilio. Siguieron escribiendo más profetas (Zacarías y Malaquías) e historiadores (Crónicas, Esdras, Nehemías, Ester).
Citando la Ley
Dado que el Antiguo Testamento se desarrolló por etapas, los escritores posteriores del Antiguo Testamento se remitieron a menudo a los libros de Moisés. Quizá el texto más citado de Moisés sea Éxodo 34:6. El texto declara: ” El Señor, el Señor, Dios compasivo y clemente, lento para la ira y abundante en misericordia y fidelidad”(LBLA).
Considera cómo estos textos posteriores del Antiguo Testamento citan a Moisés:
Sometiéndose a la Ley
Los escritores posteriores del Antiguo Testamento no sólo citaron a Moisés, sino que afirmaron explícitamente su autoridad.
Los profetas citan a los profetas
Dado que el Pentateuco tuvo autoridad desde el principio, encontramos muchas más referencias a Moisés que a cualquier otro autor del Antiguo Testamento. Dicho esto, los profetas seguían reconociendo la autoridad de otros profetas que vivieron más cerca de su época. Consideremos las palabras de Daniel:
Aunque Jeremías escribió sólo unas décadas antes, Daniel seguía reconociendo su autoridad divina.
Zacarías también reconoce la autoridad divina de sus predecesores proféticos. Escribe:
Autores y fechas
Es cierto que no podemos ser demasiado precisos en cuanto a los autores y las fechas de los libros del Antiguo Testamento, especialmente de algunas obras históricas. Dicho esto, considere el siguiente cuadro que detalla los autores y las fechas de cada libro del Antiguo Testamento[1].
Uso de las fuentes
La inspiración no implica un dictado mecánico. Aunque los autores bíblicos dictaron la palabra de Dios de vez en cuando, también emplearon otros métodos, como la investigación de fuentes históricas. Considere los siguientes ejemplos:
Lo que demuestran estos textos es que los autores bíblicos no inventaron estas cosas. Hicieron una cuidadosa investigación antes de compilar sus obras.
Editores
La inspiración no excluye la edición. En otras palabras, Dios no sólo inspiró a los autores, sino que también inspiró a los editores para que modificaran y reorganizaran el texto. Sin excepción, los escritores del Nuevo Testamento, e incluso el propio Jesús, afirman la autoría mosaica del Pentateuco (Mateo 8:4; 19:8; Marcos 7:10; 12:26; Lucas 16:31; 20:37; 24:44; Hechos 3:22; 15:1; 26:22; 28:23; 1 Cor 9:9; Heb 9:19). Dicho esto, tenemos claros indicios de una edición posterior por parte de los escribas judíos. Consideremos los siguientes textos:
¿Se autodenominó Moisés la persona más mansa de la tierra e informó de su propia muerte y entierro? Y después de su muerte, ¿informó de que no había surgido ningún profeta semejante desde los tiempos de Moisés? ¿No supone esta última afirmación que ha pasado algún tiempo desde su muerte? En resumen, mientras que Moisés escribió el Pentateuco, los escribas posteriores editaron su obra en su forma actual.
Preservación
Sabiendo que se tardó mil años en escribir el Antiguo Testamento (1400-400 a.C.), ¿qué confianza podemos tener en su preservación? Al fin y al cabo, sabemos que hubo un periodo de tiempo en el que parece que el texto se había perdido y estaba fuera de uso (2 Reyes 22-23).
Al parecer, en la época del Antiguo Testamento existían “clanes de escribas” que copiaron y conservaban la Biblia hebrea (1 Crón 2:55). Desde entonces, los escribas judíos han copiado meticulosamente los textos con los mismos fines. Quizá los más famosos de estos escribas sean los masoretas y la familia Ben Asher del siglo V d.C.. Estos copistas profesionales contaban el número de palabras de cada página y conocían el número de palabras de cada libro, así como la palabra y letra central exactas de cada libro para asegurarse de que copiaban con precisión.
Además, los masoretas añadieron marcas vocales al texto, que de otro modo carecería de ellas. Hasta la década de 1940, los textos hebreos más antiguos que poseíamos eran textos masoréticos de los siglos IX y X.
Manuscritos del Mar Muerto
En 1947, un pastor llamado Muhammed edh-Dhib salió a buscar algunas de sus ovejas por la costa del Mar Muerto. Al pasar por una cueva, lanzó una piedra al interior con la esperanza de oír el balido de las ovejas. En lugar de eso, escuchó cerámica rompiéndose. Esa vasija destrozada dio lugar a uno de los hallazgos arqueológicos más importantes del siglo XX.
Desde entonces, los arqueólogos han descubierto más de un millar de documentos judíos antiguos en docenas de cuevas cercanas que datan del año 250 a.C. al 65 d.C. Estos textos pertenecían a la comunidad de Qumrán, también conocida como los esenios. Esta gente funcionaba como los monjes judíos, aislados de la mayor parte de la sociedad. Lo más probable es que la comunidad de Qumrán escondiera sus textos sagrados en estas cuevas durante la guerra con Roma (68-70 d.C.) con la esperanza de volver a ellos una vez que se asentara el polvo. Por desgracia, todos murieron durante la guerra, por lo que sus textos permanecieron ocultos durante dos mil años.
Entre estos documentos se encuentran todos los libros del Antiguo Testamento, excepto Ester. Quizá el texto más significativo sea un rollo completo de Isaías, que consta de veintisiete hojas de pergamino cosidas de extremo a extremo. Mide seis metros de largo. El pergamino data del año 120 a.C., es decir, es mil años más antiguo que el anterior texto más antiguo. Lo más significativo es que el rollo de Isaías difiere muy poco del texto masorético del siglo X, lo que demuestra que los escribas judíos conservaron cuidadosamente el texto original.
Canon del Antiguo Testamento
En el próximo artículo se examinarán la Septuaginta, los apócrifos y el canon del Antiguo Testamento.
*Para saber más sobre este tema, lea el útil libro de Timothy Paul Jone How We Got the Bible.
Referencias:
[1] Este gráfico es una modificación del de Timothy Paul Jones, How We Got the Bible, 31-33.
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
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure tiene un Máster en Artes por la Universidad de Furman y un Máster en Divinidad por el Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Actualmente, es candidato a Doctor en Ministerio en el Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. También sirve como pastor en Grace Bible Church en Moore, SC.
Fuente original del blog: https://bit.ly/3Nnm8jP
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Elenita Romero