By Brian G. Chilton
For nearly ten years, I have been honored to bring you reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. I now find myself at the end of a terminal degree in theological and apologetic studies.[1] For some, advanced education tends to cause one to doubt one’s position over time. However, that has not been the case for me and the resurrection of Jesus. Over the last few years, I have found five new compelling reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a legitimate historical event. These five arguments may or may not be new to the reader, but they became new to me through my research and are newer than some of the previous arguments given about the resurrection in previous articles. Without further ado, consider the following five new arguments for the resurrection of Jesus.
Unexpected Nature of the Resurrection
The first argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for the resurrection that I had never before considered. That is, no one in Jesus’s day expected the Messiah to rise from the dead. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders argue that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11–15). Of all the alternate theories of the resurrection, this is by far the most compelling. Regardless of whether one holds that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, invented the story, or feigned Jesus’s death, there is one aspect that skeptics fail to consider. No one in the first century anticipated the imminent resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in Jesus’s encounter with Martha at Lazarus’s tomb. Recall that when Jesus asked Mary if she believed that Lazarus would rise from the dead, she said, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (Jn. 11:24). Martha’s response represented the typical position of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Josephus notes that the vast majority of the population in first-century Israel were Pharisees.[2]
N.T. Wright provides two reasons why the resurrection was unexpected in the first century. On the one hand, believers living in the times of Second Temple Judaism anticipated that the resurrection would bring about the “restoration of Israel … [and] the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people.”[3] On the other hand, no one in the period connected the Messiah with resurrection.[4] The concept of the Messiah resurrecting on the third day, though it may be reflected in the OT texts to a degree, was not in any way expected by believers at this time. Thus, the lack of anticipation for a resurrection delivers a fatal blow to any theory that projects the early Christians as being those who staged such an experience. Why stage something that they did not believe would happen in the first place?
Multiple Independent Sources
When it comes to any event of history, it is important for one to possess multiple source attestation. The more eyes one has on an event, the more accurate the truth can be preserved. When it comes to the resurrection, we have multiple sources pointing to the resurrection of Jesus being a historical event. First, we have the four independent sources found in the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide unique accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Matthew reports Jesus’s post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee. Mark reports the women at the tomb and their mysterious encounter with the angels at the tomb. Luke provides multiple accounts that are not preserved in the other Gospels, including the two disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13–35). John affords multiple stories not included in the other Gospels, including Thomas’s encounter with Jesus (Jn. 20:24–29), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus’s reinstatement of Peter (Jn. 21:15–19), and Peter asking Jesus about John’s ministry (Jn. 21:20–23).
In addition to the Gospels, a fifth source is found in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The early creed provides additional information concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It tells of Peter’s meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), the meeting between Jesus and James (1 Cor. 15:7), and his appearance to over 500 (1 Cor. 15:6). A sixth source is found in the sermon summaries of Peter in the book of Acts (Acts 2:14–41 and 3:12–26). A seventh source is found in the sermon summary of Stephen (especially in Acts 7:52 and 7:59–60). Finally, an eighth source is found in the sermon summaries of Paul. In the first sermon summary of Paul, he even speaks of Jesus’s empty tomb (Acts 13:29). Max Wilcox has convincingly found numerous Semitisms within the sermon summaries in Acts 1–15 that are largely not found in the remainder of the book.[5] Thus, the sermons of these chapters stem from earlier summaries that predate the composition of the book of Acts. Since a good estimate of the dating of Acts is the mid-60s, then it can be said that these summaries are much earlier. The fact that they speak of the resurrection of Jesus provides one more reason to adopt it as a genuine event of history.
Extremely Early Testimony
The study into the early creeds of the NT is gaining steam. Though he may claim otherwise, NT scholar and self-professed atheist-leaning-agnostic Bart Ehrman wrote that Paul received the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–9) while in Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36.[6] He goes on to say that “the traditions [Paul] inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”[7] Since the early creeds wholeheartedly affirm Jesus’s literal bodily resurrection, then this provides firm evidence that the earliest disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul’s sermon summary also affirmed the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty, as noted previously. With many, if not the majority, of the early creeds, we are talking about them circulating just a few months to a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion.[8] The creeds found in the Pauline epistles stemmed from the information Paul obtained from his interaction with the Jerusalem Church a couple of years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). He spent two weeks with Peter and James learning about the teachings and doctrines of Christ. As C. H. Dodd notes, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[9] Thus, the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead came very early from the place where Jesus had been crucified. The details from the early sermon summaries of Acts and the creeds in Paul’s epistles make for a full and compelling case for the early preaching of the resurrection. When pieced with the first argument, it is difficult to find any other explanation outside of the fact that Jesus literally rose from the dead.
Unique Early Eschatological Christology
Finally, it has been observed that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology.[10] Additionally, early Jesus traditions endorse the idea that Jesus spoke of an eschatological figure who would usher in the kingdom of God. This eschatological figure is known as the Son of Man. The Son of Man arguably constructs the Christological core of Q—a theoretical Gospel that precedes the canonical Gospels.[11] Part of this early tradition includes Jesus’s comment that as “Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40).[12] The Son of Man figure is almost exclusively found in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, this was a unique teaching of Jesus. Not only does the Son of Man figure connect with Jesus being God’s regent who brings God’s kingdom to earth, but it also speaks of his glorification which relates to his resurrection. Therefore, early Jesus preaching of the resurrection was remembered and preserved by the early disciples because of Jesus’s literal fulfillment of this unique and unexpected promise.
Conclusion
Some of these arguments may be new to you and some may not. Some of these aspects will be further fleshed out in my pending dissertation. Nonetheless, the unique and unexpected nature of the resurrection, the early preaching of the resurrection, multiple sources, and Jesus’s early eschatological identification with the resurrection all speak strongly to the probability that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. My hope is that these arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, in addition to the classic arguments, strengthen your faith and offer you hope that there is a life beyond this mere mortal existence.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Notes
[1] That is, providing I successfully defend my dissertation.
[2] Josephus contends that the Pharisees were so loved, and the Sadducees were so despised that the Sadducees would adopt certain notions from the Pharisees to find favor with the populace. Josephus, Antiq. 18.15–17.
[3] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 205.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965), 171.
[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 266.
[9] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2nd ed (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 16.
[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), x, 235.
[11] For a full discussion of the issues concerning this topic, see John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 388–395.
[12] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scriptures come from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Mwb6bS
Infantile Rage vs. Human Nature | with Dr. David Berlinski
PodcastDr. David Berlinski has never met a controversy he didn’t want to engage with. In this bonus episode, the provocative Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and self-described secular Jew, joins Frank to discuss how human nature intersects with gender issues, truth, and evolution. You’ll enjoy Dr. Berlinski’s eloquence and insights as he addresses the most controversial issues of the day.
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
4 New Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian G. Chilton
For nearly ten years, I have been honored to bring you reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. I now find myself at the end of a terminal degree in theological and apologetic studies.[1] For some, advanced education tends to cause one to doubt one’s position over time. However, that has not been the case for me and the resurrection of Jesus. Over the last few years, I have found five new compelling reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a legitimate historical event. These five arguments may or may not be new to the reader, but they became new to me through my research and are newer than some of the previous arguments given about the resurrection in previous articles. Without further ado, consider the following five new arguments for the resurrection of Jesus.
Unexpected Nature of the Resurrection
The first argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for the resurrection that I had never before considered. That is, no one in Jesus’s day expected the Messiah to rise from the dead. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders argue that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11–15). Of all the alternate theories of the resurrection, this is by far the most compelling. Regardless of whether one holds that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, invented the story, or feigned Jesus’s death, there is one aspect that skeptics fail to consider. No one in the first century anticipated the imminent resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in Jesus’s encounter with Martha at Lazarus’s tomb. Recall that when Jesus asked Mary if she believed that Lazarus would rise from the dead, she said, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (Jn. 11:24). Martha’s response represented the typical position of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Josephus notes that the vast majority of the population in first-century Israel were Pharisees.[2]
N.T. Wright provides two reasons why the resurrection was unexpected in the first century. On the one hand, believers living in the times of Second Temple Judaism anticipated that the resurrection would bring about the “restoration of Israel … [and] the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people.”[3] On the other hand, no one in the period connected the Messiah with resurrection.[4] The concept of the Messiah resurrecting on the third day, though it may be reflected in the OT texts to a degree, was not in any way expected by believers at this time. Thus, the lack of anticipation for a resurrection delivers a fatal blow to any theory that projects the early Christians as being those who staged such an experience. Why stage something that they did not believe would happen in the first place?
Multiple Independent Sources
When it comes to any event of history, it is important for one to possess multiple source attestation. The more eyes one has on an event, the more accurate the truth can be preserved. When it comes to the resurrection, we have multiple sources pointing to the resurrection of Jesus being a historical event. First, we have the four independent sources found in the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide unique accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Matthew reports Jesus’s post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee. Mark reports the women at the tomb and their mysterious encounter with the angels at the tomb. Luke provides multiple accounts that are not preserved in the other Gospels, including the two disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13–35). John affords multiple stories not included in the other Gospels, including Thomas’s encounter with Jesus (Jn. 20:24–29), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus’s reinstatement of Peter (Jn. 21:15–19), and Peter asking Jesus about John’s ministry (Jn. 21:20–23).
In addition to the Gospels, a fifth source is found in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The early creed provides additional information concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It tells of Peter’s meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), the meeting between Jesus and James (1 Cor. 15:7), and his appearance to over 500 (1 Cor. 15:6). A sixth source is found in the sermon summaries of Peter in the book of Acts (Acts 2:14–41 and 3:12–26). A seventh source is found in the sermon summary of Stephen (especially in Acts 7:52 and 7:59–60). Finally, an eighth source is found in the sermon summaries of Paul. In the first sermon summary of Paul, he even speaks of Jesus’s empty tomb (Acts 13:29). Max Wilcox has convincingly found numerous Semitisms within the sermon summaries in Acts 1–15 that are largely not found in the remainder of the book.[5] Thus, the sermons of these chapters stem from earlier summaries that predate the composition of the book of Acts. Since a good estimate of the dating of Acts is the mid-60s, then it can be said that these summaries are much earlier. The fact that they speak of the resurrection of Jesus provides one more reason to adopt it as a genuine event of history.
Extremely Early Testimony
The study into the early creeds of the NT is gaining steam. Though he may claim otherwise, NT scholar and self-professed atheist-leaning-agnostic Bart Ehrman wrote that Paul received the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–9) while in Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36.[6] He goes on to say that “the traditions [Paul] inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”[7] Since the early creeds wholeheartedly affirm Jesus’s literal bodily resurrection, then this provides firm evidence that the earliest disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul’s sermon summary also affirmed the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty, as noted previously. With many, if not the majority, of the early creeds, we are talking about them circulating just a few months to a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion.[8] The creeds found in the Pauline epistles stemmed from the information Paul obtained from his interaction with the Jerusalem Church a couple of years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). He spent two weeks with Peter and James learning about the teachings and doctrines of Christ. As C. H. Dodd notes, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[9] Thus, the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead came very early from the place where Jesus had been crucified. The details from the early sermon summaries of Acts and the creeds in Paul’s epistles make for a full and compelling case for the early preaching of the resurrection. When pieced with the first argument, it is difficult to find any other explanation outside of the fact that Jesus literally rose from the dead.
Unique Early Eschatological Christology
Finally, it has been observed that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology.[10] Additionally, early Jesus traditions endorse the idea that Jesus spoke of an eschatological figure who would usher in the kingdom of God. This eschatological figure is known as the Son of Man. The Son of Man arguably constructs the Christological core of Q—a theoretical Gospel that precedes the canonical Gospels.[11] Part of this early tradition includes Jesus’s comment that as “Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40).[12] The Son of Man figure is almost exclusively found in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, this was a unique teaching of Jesus. Not only does the Son of Man figure connect with Jesus being God’s regent who brings God’s kingdom to earth, but it also speaks of his glorification which relates to his resurrection. Therefore, early Jesus preaching of the resurrection was remembered and preserved by the early disciples because of Jesus’s literal fulfillment of this unique and unexpected promise.
Conclusion
Some of these arguments may be new to you and some may not. Some of these aspects will be further fleshed out in my pending dissertation. Nonetheless, the unique and unexpected nature of the resurrection, the early preaching of the resurrection, multiple sources, and Jesus’s early eschatological identification with the resurrection all speak strongly to the probability that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. My hope is that these arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, in addition to the classic arguments, strengthen your faith and offer you hope that there is a life beyond this mere mortal existence.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
Notes
[1] That is, providing I successfully defend my dissertation.
[2] Josephus contends that the Pharisees were so loved, and the Sadducees were so despised that the Sadducees would adopt certain notions from the Pharisees to find favor with the populace. Josephus, Antiq. 18.15–17.
[3] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 205.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965), 171.
[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 266.
[9] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2nd ed (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 16.
[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), x, 235.
[11] For a full discussion of the issues concerning this topic, see John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 388–395.
[12] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scriptures come from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as a pastor in northwestern North Carolina.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Mwb6bS
“Being Good” Isn’t Enough For Salvation
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
The point of Christian apologetics is to “defend” the faith, and the point of the faith is to proclaim the good news of salvation to the world. Salvation, naturally enough, means saving, and a person only needs saving when he is in some peril. But ask many people today what peril they are in: they may tell you they’re worried about the state of the economy or inflation, or about the rising crime rates across the country, or about difficulties they might be having at home. It’s doubtful that they will throw in that they’re also concerned about the ultimate destiny of their soul, or that they wish they could be sure that they will spend eternity in God’s presence in the company of those they have loved here.
Why is that? Why are so many people today so confident that their soul does not need salvation? Though there are an increasing number of atheists, most people still recognize that there is a God who created them and all there is around us. Nonetheless, though fallen away from the faith they once knew, they do not seem worried about how God will one day judge them. Most often, if pressed, the modern secularist will provide a variation of: “Look, I’m a good person, after all, and God will judge me accordingly. There’s nothing for me to be worried about.”
There are dozens of definitions of “good” but for our purposes, let’s assume that most people mean “good” as something along the lines of “morally excellent, virtuous or righteous.” God presumably will tally all the morally excellent, virtuous or righteous deeds they have done in their lives, and this will tip the “scales of justice” in favor of entry into heaven.
But this analogy, upon reflection, actually provides scant reassurance. After all, a scale is only used if there is something to be placed on the other side, something against which the one side is weighed or measured. If a “good“ deed tips the balance in one direction, then failing to perform such a deed, or worse yet acting in ways that are decidedly not good, moves the needle in the other direction. Most people would agree that acting in a “selfish“ manner, i.e. making decisions that benefit only oneself and not the others in one‘s life, is not a “good“ way to act. But selfishness is part of the human condition. Parents see it in their young children, and most parents try to move children away from selfishness into more altruistic types of behavior. Add to that the times that we are not simply failing to do good but are intentionally doing wrong, without caring about the harm our actions may bring to others. Seen from this perspective, we have a real problem, for God is all-seeing and all-knowing. He lives eternally and sees all that we have ever thought or done; the things we may view as in our distant past remain in his eternal present. For anyone engaging in a clear-eyed and rational assessment of the situation, there is real cause to be concerned that the scale upon which we are being measured will quickly tip against us.
Let’s approach this with a modern example. Repeated studies tell us that an increasing percentage of the American population is overweight or obese. Health experts consistently warn of the many negative consequences that can attach to excessive weight, ranging from greater risk of serious health consequences from Covid to various types of illnesses and cancers. While some involuntary factors may contribute to obesity, this unhealthy lifestyle does still involve the repeated choice to eat to excess. I suspect no one starts out in life wanting to tip the scales against himself by choosing gluttony as a lifestyle. More likely, the end result is the product of many small decisions, played out repeatedly over the course of time. Indeed, it is difficult to fight the human capacity for self-deception. We ignore the evidence of our eyes, and of the scale, as we continue to feel “pretty good” about ourselves and the choices we make. We applaud ourselves for skipping dessert or starting a diet, all the while ignoring the bulging beltline that displays the direction in which the scale is tilting.
So too, it seems, with eternal things. We applaud ourselves for donating to charity, or volunteering at the soup kitchen. We give ourselves a pat on the back for each time we keep our temper in check. We laud ourselves for our sense of tolerance and enlightened thinking and surround ourselves with people who feel and think the same. In so doing, we focus only on the one side of the scale, neglecting to remember the many times we fell short of the mark…or worse, engaged in intentional bad behavior.
Banking on our ability to keep the scale tipped in our favor – on the side of “good” outweighing bad – simply fails to consider how a perfect God views our behavior. Like battling obesity through diet and exercise, the struggle is incremental. We may in fact do much that is good and worthy of praise. But like the defendant in an earthly court, the misdeed that has brought him before the court isn’t ignored when the defendant seeks to impress the judge with the many good deeds he has performed in his life. The point of the sentencing, on a finding of guilt, is to attach the appropriate consequence to the misbehavior in question. Standing before a perfect God and asking him to forget our misdeeds because we also happened to have done some good in our lives will be similarly unavailing. How does one go about impressing a judge who has both set the standard of perfection and is Himself perfect in every conceivable way?
The good news of course is that the One who made the scale, and who will do the judging, has given us the means to put the scale back in balance. This first requires us to see ourselves clearly enough to accept that we cannot meet God’s standard of perfection on our own. When Jesus took our sins upon himself on that cross two thousand years ago, he provided the means for us to become reconciled with God, to be “perfected” so that we can be ready and worthy to stand in the presence of a perfect being. It is Jesus who does the work of salvation, not us and our meager efforts at being “good.”
Trying to do good is a laudable goal. Sadly, too often today it is in short supply. But doing “good” isn’t going to be enough when that someday comes, as it will for each of us, that we meet our Maker.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD 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.
Jack Hibbs vs. Infanticide
PodcastCan you believe that California is about to pass a law that would allow people to literally murder their children up to 28 days AFTER birth? We are not making this up! See AB 2223.
Pastor Jack Hibbs, of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, joins Frank to reveal this unbelievably evil bill and to let us know what we can do about it. He also reveals why he takes such a public stand on these issues that have become political, and who resists him the most when he does (you might be surprised just who that is). Frank and Jack also talk about how you can get informed to fight back.
By the way, if you don’t live in California, you should still be concerned and take action. Children are about to be killed, and what starts in California usually spreads to other states.
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
¿Es el ateísmo la falta de creencia en Dios?
EspañolBy Frank Turek
It’s become fashionable lately for atheists to claim that atheism is “a lack of belief in God.” So when a theist comes along and says that atheists can’t hold to their worldview, some atheists will say something like, “Oh, we don’t really have a worldview. We just lack a belief in God. Since we make no positive claims about the world, we have no burden of proof to support atheism. We just find the arguments for God lacking.”
What is missing are good reasons to believe in this new definition.
First, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then atheism is just a claim about the atheist’s mental state, not a claim about God’s existence. The “atheist” simply says, “I’m not psychologically convinced that God exists.” So what? That offers no evidence for or against God. Most people lack a belief in unguided evolution, but no atheist would say that proves evolution false.
Secondly, if atheism is simply a lack of belief in God, then rocks, trees, and latrines are all “atheistic” because they also lack a belief in God. It doesn’t take any brains to “disbelieve” in something. A true atheist believes there is no God.
Third, most atheists don’t just “lack a belief in God” because they constantly try to explain the world by offering supposed alternatives to God. Atheists write book after book insisting that God has no job because of quantum theory, multiple universes, and evolution. While none of these atheistic arguments succeed in proving that there is no God, they do show that atheists not only lack a belief in God, but believe in certain theories to explain reality without God.
They believe in such theories because atheism is a worldview with beliefs just as much as theism is a worldview with beliefs. (A “worldview” is a set of beliefs about the big questions of life, such as: What is ultimate reality? Who are we? What is the meaning of life? How should we live? What is our destiny? etc.) To claim that atheism is not a worldview is like saying that anarchy is not really a political position. As Bo Jinn observes, “An anarchist can say that he or she simply ‘rejects politics,’ but he or she is still faced with the inescapable problem of how human society should be organized, whether or not he or she likes the idea of someone being in charge.”
Similarly, atheists may claim to just “reject God,” but they still face the inescapable problem of how to explain ultimate reality. Just as anarchists affirm the positive belief that anarchy is the best way to organize society, atheists affirm the positive belief that atheistic materialism is the best way to explain ultimate reality.
In other words, atheists do not “lack a belief” in materialism. They are not skeptics of materialism – they believe it is true! As Phillip Johnson said, “He who is skeptical in one set of beliefs is a true believer in another set of beliefs.” Lack of belief in God does not automatically establish materialism, any more than lack of belief in atheism automatically establishes Christianity. No atheist would say that a Christian has made a good case because he “lacks a belief” in materialism!
Each has the burden of proof to support his position. Atheists must positively argue that only material things exist. So rather than debate “Does God exist?” I prefer to debate the question “Which explains reality better: atheism or theism?” So it is obvious that both debaters have the burden of proof to support their position. Atheists cannot simply identify what they believe to be shortcomings of theism. They must present a convincing case that everything has been caused by matter and consists only of material things, including:
– The beginning of the universe
– The fine-tuning of the universe
– The laws of nature
– The laws of logic
– The laws of mathematics
– Information (genetic code)
– Life
– Mind and consciousness
– Free will
– Objective morality
– Evil
It is rare to find an atheist who attempts to explain more than one or two of these things materially. How could they do so? How can laws be material? New atheists must provide reasons to support their belief that materialism is true. Simply lacking a belief in God does not prove their worldview.
Finally, the definition of “I simply lack a belief in God” leads to a contradictory result. As Dr. Richard Howe notes, “This definition of atheism carries with it the extravagant conclusion that atheism is logically compatible with theism.” Here’s why: If lacking a belief in God is the definition of “atheism”—and not “there is no God”—then “atheism” is true even if God actually exists. How is that reasonable?
We should not allow atheists to hide behind that definition of lack. A true atheist is someone who believes there is no God. And atheists have the burden of proof to show how materialism is true and reality can be explained without God.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and university speaker who hosts a weekly television show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations nationwide. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and Robbing God: Why Atheists Need God.
Original source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/3r9vZBl
Translated by Daniela Checa Delgado
Edited by Elenita Romero
Why Am I A “Sinner” And Why Do I Need To Be Forgiven?
Apologetics for Parents, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Bob Perry
Here’s a question I got recently: “It has always bothered me that I am a sinful human. None of my good efforts, leading a good life can deter sin. I was born with sin and I have to be forgiven? I don’t get that. Why am I a ‘sinner’ and why do I need to be forgiven?” This is a difficult question to answer, especially when it comes from a genuine, good-hearted person. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a “sinner.” For the most part, all of us try to be kind, nice, and loving. We’re not serial killers, or bank robbers, or child molesters, or even shady politicians. It seems unfair to call someone a sinner — especially when you also seem to be saying that they were born to be that way.
There is a unique Christian solution to this dilemma. I’d like to offer three things to keep in mind when you think about it:
Exchange the Word “Sinner” with “Rebel”
I think part of the problem is that “sin” is a religiously loaded word. Yes, we are sinners, but the word conjures images of angry preachers demeaning our character and yelling from the pulpit that we need to “repent!” It all just sounds so judgmental and archaic. But the simple fact is that every one of us has done wrong things, no matter how small we think they are. We have all lied, cheated, stolen things, or mistreated other people. We have all been angry, jealous, or unfair to someone in our lives. It’s part of being human. So, if we have all done these things, it’s not unfair to acknowledge it. It’s just an observation about our common human nature.
The problem is that every time we do one of these things, we are violating an objective standard of moral goodness that we all recognize and should be trying to live our lives by. All of us realize this But, we do these kinds of things anyway. Every single human being who has ever lived is therefore a rebel in the same way. So, exchange the word “sinner” with “rebel.” Both are accurate, but rebel sounds less judgmental.
Use a Different Standard for Comparison
Instead of comparing ourselves to the bad actors in the world and seeing ourselves as pretty decent folks, we need to measure our rebellious actions against the standard we are actually violating. That standard is the perfect moral character of God. Nobody likes being told they’re a “sinner,” but when we change our mindset to realize our rebellion is against a perfect God, it puts things in a different perspective.
Imagine an artist’s masterpiece with a tiny flaw. Someone erases an eyeball on the Mona Lisa or vandalizes it with a single drop of bright yellow paint. Yes, the flaw is tiny. But no matter how small it is, you can’t help but see it. A tiny corruption in a masterpiece ruins the whole thing.
The Unique Christian Solution
If the standard is perfection, then any violation of that standard, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, creates an infinite separation between us and that perfection. Think of it as an infinitely wide canyon where we are on one side and God is on the other. Every religion offers a solution to crossing the divide, but Christianity’s solution is unique.
There are three possible responses to bridging the canyon we create when we rebel against God’s perfect moral standard.
All we have to do is acknowledge the fairly obvious fact that we are all rebels when we compare ourselves to the proper standard — then let God build us a bridge.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Oa1k0t
Norman L. Geisler: A Student’s Tribute
Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Huffling
I first heard about Dr. Norman L. Geisler when I was in high school. I bought his When Skeptics Ask. I glossed over it but thought it was beyond me. During my senior year of college, my wife and I decided to move back to my native Charlotte after graduation and study apologetics under Dr. Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary. Before making the move, we visited the seminary. While sitting in the registrar’s office, Dr. Geisler walked by, and I was star struck. After the tour, Dr. Doug Potter introduced us to Dr. Geisler. I was so nervous. He asked if we had lunch plans. I got even more nervous. We said no, and he asked if we would have lunch with him. Of course, we said yes. On the way out of the building he asked if I would drive as his car was in the shop. Even more nervous.
We went to a place called Wolfgang Puck (which is no longer there). I asked what he recommended and he said the butternut squash soup. So, I got that. Let me tell you, it was awful! Between the nervousness and the bad taste, I just couldn’t eat. However, after a while my nerves calmed, and he noticed I wasn’t eating. He asked if I didn’t like the soup, and I replied no (feeling badly). “Here, have some of my sandwich,” he said. Norman Geisler gave me half of his sandwich! I felt so bad. However, that is the kind of man he was. To be such a rock star in the world of evangelical apologetics, philosophy, theology, and biblical studies, he was such a humble man. That was something that I would notice for years to come.
As a student I took several classes from him, including Intro to Apologetics, several theology courses, a philosophy course, and the Problem of Evil. Of course, everyone knows he was a scholarly man. With over 100 books to his name, and I don’t know how many articles and presentations, he had a profound impact on the evangelical community. In fact, his impact was felt in many more circles than that. I have heard several people outside of evangelicalism, such as Ed Feser, and even outside of Christianity, such as Michael Ruse, praise him for his scholarship and care.
I have learned many things from Dr. Geisler. Having read several of his books, taken several classes, and co-taught with him, several characteristics stick out to me.
First, he was as logical as Spock. He could take a complicated argument (or an incoherent mess), and explain it to anyone in the most logical fashion, removing all unnecessary emotion. This is extremely important in issues of philosophy and apologetics when an issue can be convoluted or overly emotional. Second, he was a wizard at debating. Having seen several of his debates and discussions with unbelievers, he was a force to be reckoned with. Third, he was very caring of his students. He went out of his way to help however he could. He didn’t just talk the talk, he walked the walk. I remember him taking time to help me with my application to be an Air Force chaplain. I had to answer questions that I didn’t even understand what was being asked, let alone how to answer. He was patient and helpful. My wife was always amazed at how he remembered her name with over 50 students in a class and often asked for updates since the last time he had chatted with her even if it had been months prior. Fourth, and this is possibly what he is known best for, he was a bulldog at safeguarding evangelical issues such as inerrancy, the classical view of God, and the bodily resurrection of Christ.
His grace as a teacher didn’t stop with him being my professor. I was fortunate and honored to be able to teach a few classes with him. He treated me with grace and respect, even though I was very much his weaker assistant professor. He was never too busy to stop and say hello and see how things were going.
We can take the following lessons from our fellow servant of Christ: Be knowledgeable Christians. We have to know what we believe and why, and be prepared to defend it. We have to understand our interlocutor’s argument if we want to evaluate it. We have to make the Bible and devotion to Christ our first and foremost goal in life. It is not simply about winning arguments; it is about winning people for Jesus. Last, we have to be willing to serve others. We must live the servant life, as Christ and Dr. Geisler did.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian Huffling, PH.D. have a BA in History from Lee University, an MA in (3 majors) Apologetics, Philosophy, and Biblical Studies from Southern Evangelical Seminary (SES), and a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Religion from SES. He is the Director of the Ph.D. Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SES. He also teaches courses for Apologia Online Academy. He has previously taught at The Art Institute of Charlotte. He has served in the Marines, Navy, and is currently a reserve chaplain in the Air Force at Maxwell Air Force Base. His hobbies include golf, backyard astronomy, martial arts, and guitar.
Original blog: https://bit.ly/3xnkcTJ
Why Good Friday is the Best News Ever
Culture CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Frank Turek
Despite intense personal and political division, we all agree on one thing: something is terribly wrong with this world. Pain, suffering, injustice, and death affect us all at some point because we live in a broken world. And we live in a broken world because we are all personally broken.
Who hasn’t committed any moral wrongs? (If you claim you haven’t, you just committed a moral wrong—lying!) The truth is we are all fallen. While we hate the evil done by others, we rarely notice the evil we do. We may call our political opponents hypocrites, but we don’t even live up to our own standards much less God’s. None of us are perfect. We are all guilty of something.
It’s only when we admit our guilt can we fathom the liberating and eternal implications of Good Friday. That’s when the innocent and perfect God-man took the punishment you and I deserve on Himself so we could be forgiven of our moral wrongs and reconciled to God.
“Why do we need to be forgiven and reconciled to God?” you ask. “Can’t God just grade on a curve?”
No, because God is an infinitely just Being. If He didn’t punish moral wrongs, then He wouldn’t be the infinite standard of justice. We know this standard of justice exists because without it we couldn’t even recognize any of the injustice we complain about—anything wrong in our society or any evil that has been done to us personally. Injustice can’t exist unless justice exists, but justice can’t exist unless God exists. Without God as the moral standard every behavior would just be a matter of opinion—even murder, rape and child abuse!
Thankfully, God is also the infinite standard of love which compels Him to find a way to allow unjust people like you and me to go unpunished. He does that by punishing Jesus of Nazareth—who volunteers for the mission—in our place.
“The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give His live as ransom for many,” Jesus revealed (Mk. 10:45). Just before he went to the cross, Jesus also declared that there’s no greater love than “to lay down one’s life for one’s friends” (John 15:13).
On the original Good Friday 1,989 years ago, Jesus suffered and died not to turn us into nice people but forgiven people. Jesus isn’t merely a moral example like other religious leaders; Jesus is our substitute. Since we’ve already committed moral crimes, we can’t work our way to God by being a “good person”. Jesus was that perfectly good person in our place. He’s done all the work for us and offers His life for ours as a gift. When you accept His gift, you are not only forgiven but given the righteousness of Christ. You are a new creation adopted into the family of God by grace, apart from works (2 Cor. 5:17-21, Eph. 2:8).
Without grace we will each get justice. If you think about your life and every hidden thing you’ve ever done, do you really want justice from God? Justice is getting what you deserve. Grace is getting what you don’t deserve. The only way to avoid justice is to accept the grace Jesus provides by putting your trust in Him.
Accepting the sacrifice Jesus made on Good Friday liberates you from your past, present and future wrongs by making forgiveness and eternal life possible (John 3:16). That’s why Good Friday is truly “Good”. In fact, it’s the best news ever.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
In a world obsessed with superhero movies, is there anything we can learn about God from watching the big screen? Stay tuned for the Hollywood Heroes book trailer–the latest by Dr. Frank Turek and his son Zach–COMING SOON!👉📱https://bit.ly/3LqDsn9
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation. His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Stealing from God: Why atheists need God to make their case, and is co-author of the new book Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God.
Original blog: https://fxn.ws/37N4qa5
Contradicciones en la vida de un cristiano
EspañolBy Luke Nix
Introduction
The Christian Church is no stranger to hypocrisy. The Church is made up of sinners who do not always practice what they preach, and sometimes that practice is in stark contradiction to what we preach. Some of the most heinous acts have been committed by Christians while speaking the truth. It seems that sexual misconduct within the Church is always in the spotlight. For as long as I can remember, I have been aware of numerous sexual scandals within the Church. Like anyone, some have hit close to home and others from afar. The ones that hit close to home tend to be particularly devastating, both physically and emotionally, as well as spiritually and intellectually.
It is important for those affected to hold on to a worldview that can objectively condemn such actions and provide healing for the victims. In these emotionally difficult situations, it is easy to doubt the truth of Christianity. Today, I want to take a few moments to show how such hypocrisy actually reveals the truth of the Christian worldview and how the Christian worldview in turn offers the only possible answer to hypocrisy.
The objectivity of evil
First, the actions of a sexual predator must be qualified as objectively evil, not simply something that a group of people dislike or prefer. The claim that what they did was evil is not just an opinion that can be dismissed by those who see nothing wrong with the actions. That such actions are objectively evil is a feature of reality that must be confronted, explained, and responded to by any worldview.
No worldview can escape this obligation. No worldview that lacks an anchor for objective morality can provide a meaningful judgment about “evil”; those who hold these worldviews can only issue opinions, which are no more valid or true than the person who may also hold the same worldview and say the actions were “good.” Any worldview that lacks such an anchor is defeated by the actions of any sexual predator (whether church members or not).
The scars of sin and the cost of agnosticism and moral relativism
Every victim of sexual misconduct, sexual abuse, rape, etc., is created in the image of God, and is therefore intrinsically valuable. Their rape is objectively wrong, and justice must be served. The devastation of these types of rapes takes years and even decades to heal, if at all. These men, women, boys, and girls will carry the scars for the rest of their lives. These scars will stand as a testament to the truth that objective evil exists.
Any worldview that remains agnostic or ambivalent about the moral status of these actions turns victims into victims again and again. Worldviews without an anchor for objective morality devalue violations and elevate them to moral equivalence with love, honesty, and integrity. Worldviews that cannot call evil “evil” in any meaningful sense of the word (or for that matter, cannot call good “good” either) foster the creation of more victims and compound the suffering of those already victimized.
Such sins in the life of a Christian demonstrate conclusively that no morally relativistic or agnostic worldview deserves a place in a culture, a government, or even at the table of intellectual inquiry, because it perpetually violates reality by violating its victims over and over again.
What if God doesn’t exist?
Sexual sin is detestable, contemptible, and heinous, and we all know this intuitively. The person who commits evil is ultimately eternally damnable because he has violated the intrinsic worth of a human being created in the image of God, and in doing so, he has violated the eternally and morally perfect God. God is the only source of morality that is independent of each and every human being. He alone is the anchor that allows anyone to objectively identify such actions as morally “evil.”
Simply put, if God does not exist, then nothing these Christians did is wrong. Nothing they do is worthy of condemnation or even discussion, as they are simply dancing around with their DNA – the victims will still be victims because they are not really “victims” of anything good or bad. This is not to say that someone has to believe that God exists in order to condemn a Christian’s sexual violations; rather it is to say that just because God exists, even an atheist can accurately condemn such actions as objectively wrong. If God does not exist, then not even the theist can condemn sexual abuse as objectively wrong.
The cognitive and emotional dissonance of evil
When stories of a perpetrator’s heinous acts are told, the moral law that is written in all of our hearts will surface emotionally and powerfully. The emotions we feel are not there simply because we feel these actions are wrong, but because they are objectively wrong, and our outrage is a very appropriate reaction to such violations. Head and heart, logic and emotion, converge in perfect harmony to reveal the truth of reality and the truth of God’s existence. Unless God exists, a person’s “evil” acts bring nothing but cognitive and emotional dissonance.
Actions speak louder than words
If the grotesque moral failings of gospel ministers are to serve any purpose, it is to try to shake our culture out of its moral and intellectual stupor and remind us of the contradiction of every Christian life. But, in stark contrast to every Christian, there is no contradiction in God —not in his actions, not in his words. We all long for someone to be totally consistent in what he says and what he does. But this simply won’t happen when we look at man, even Christian leaders. We should not be surprised when gospel ministers fail morally. We should be surprised that, despite the evidence all around us of humanity’s fallenness, we still try to look at humanity for perfect consistency.
Instead, we must look to the morally perfect Creator, against whom all humans have sinned. This God loves us and desires an infinite, personal relationship with us—so much so that He became one of us to take upon Himself our sins and the wrath we deserve because of them. Justice was served for every sin we could ever commit when Jesus Christ died on the cross. And in His bodily resurrection from the dead, we have forgiveness (1 Cor 15). Jesus’ resurrection provides us with proof of the truth of His claim to be the Creator God of the universe, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, without whom no one can come to the Father (John 14:6).
Conclusion – My two sentences
Sin, hypocrisy, and betrayal in the life of any Christian minister does not prove, or even indicate, that Christianity is false. Quite the opposite: it provides stark evidence of a worldview versus reality that only Christianity surpasses. Christianity never claims that Christians are perfect; in fact, it makes the opposite claim: that Christians can and do do egregiously evil things. This is the reality in which we live, of which we are a part, and which Christianity, uniquely among all worldviews in history, accurately describes. Only through Christ is the sinner healed, the victim healed, and both reconciled to God.
It is my prayer that all victims will find sympathetic ears in today’s culture, people who will recognize, validate and anchor the objectivity of the evil and suffering they endure, people who will recognize that full healing can only be found at the Cross.
I also pray that as more revelations of moral failings within the Church occur, this will cause unbelievers to consider the grounds for their moral outrage, investigate the evidence, and realize that they too are in need of Christ’s atonement, forgiveness, and resurrection.
Finally, remember that it is not Christ who has failed us; it is the members of His Church who have failed us. It is time for us to stop placing our trust in people and start placing it properly where the evidence tells us it should have been in the first place: in Christ. I implore you to follow the moral, philosophical, historical, and scientific evidence where it leads you: to give your life fully and completely to Christ to find both healing and forgiveness.
Recommended resources in Spanish:
Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek
Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Luke Nix holds a degree in Computer Science and works as an IT Help Desk and Technical Support Manager at a local precious metals exchange in Oklahoma.
Original Source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/35Zh3OS
Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia
Edited by Monica Pirateque
Is the Resurrection Unbelievable?
PodcastCan we really believe Jesus rose from the dead? If the Resurrection of Jesus didn’t really happen, then Christianity is false (as even the Apostle Paul admitted in 1 Cor. 15). On the other hand, if it really did happen 1,989 years ago (give or take a few years), then the essentials of the Christian faith really are true. So which is it?
Justin Brierley, host of the wonderfully interesting Unbelievable show in the UK, joins Frank to discuss the evidence for God and the Resurrection of Jesus. Justin has more insights than most because he doesn’t sit in a Christian echo chamber. He engages the best atheist and Christian minds in the world to debate these issues. He’s heard the best both sides have to offer and will reveal why he still thinks the Resurrection really happened.
Justin is also hosting the “God Unmuted” conference at the British Library on May 14. You can sign up to watch and interact from the US by going to Unbelievable.live.
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