Page 83 – CrossExamined

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

We are coming up on a time of year when the resurrection of a virgin-born child whose followers called the “Good Shepherd” and “Messiah” is celebrated. He had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself for the peace of the world. He was buried in a tomb only to rise from the dead three days later. His followers went on to celebrate his resurrection every year, and this celebration eventually became what we call “Easter.

Think I’m talking about Jesus?

Nope. I’m talking about Mithras.

This is a common claim that is made by skeptics all over popular media, the internet, and even in some universities. The only problem—it’s simply not true. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was born out of solid rock (I guess it counts if the rock was a virgin?) His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but Christians already knew that wasn’t the real date of Christ’s birth. There is no evidence that he had twelve disciples, sacrificed himself for world peace, or that he was called “Good Shepherd” or “Messiah.” Many mythological characters were thought to be miracle workers (so maybe they can have that one), but there is no evidence he ever even died—which makes his “resurrection” a wee bit of a dilemma.

Church Father Tertullian wrote about Mithraic believers acting out resurrection stories, but this was well after the time of the New Testament. So, if there are a couple of similarities between Jesus and Mithras, it could be that Mithraic believers copied the Christians….rather than the other way around.

Mithras isn’t the only pagan myth that Christians are accused of copying. Although most scholars are agreed that no such “dying and rising gods” existed before Christ,[1] here are 5 reasons the resurrection of Jesus could NOT be a copycat. (These 5 points are my summary of this 5 part video series by Dr. Michael Licona.)

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

When I was a little girl I remember asking someone why there are thunder and lightning. I was jokingly told thunder meant either that God was clapping his hands or maybe the angels were bowling in heaven. In the ancient world, people would describe things like the change of seasons, drought, and rain in a similar way…to their children.

Imagine an ancient Egyptian little boy asking his mom why it hadn’t rained in a while. The mom might tell him the story of the storm god Ba’al who was swallowed by his brother Mot, the god of death and the underworld. When the mother of the two gods was able to convince Mot to let his brother go, it would rain again—thus explaining the cycle of rain.

Unlike pagan myths, which were annual events going back to the distant past, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time occurrence. It was reported as a recent event that happened within the lifetimes of the people who claimed to witness it—and it was not connected to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

First century Christians were constantly debating things related to the law. Should Jewish men maintain the temple purification rites? Should Gentile men be circumcised? Should Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols? These are the types of problems they took very seriously and went to great lengths to solve.

Bottom line—it’s absurd to conclude that people who were pious Jews, debating things as particular as whether or not Jewish and Gentile believers should even eat together—would borrow from pagan myths to create their own.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

During the course of human history, similarities in stories and parallels in experience are not going to be hard to find. For example, we are all familiar with a plane that took off from Massachusetts one morning and flew into one of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City between the 78th and 80th floors, killing everyone on the plane. You are probably thinking of the horrifying terrorist attack of 911 that forever changed our country. However, I’m actually referring to the B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building in 1945.

Although these two tragedies share some eerie similarities, there is no causal connection between them. Likewise, no causal connection has been shown between the resurrection of Jesus and pagan myths.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

Much like the Mithras example given above, most of the pagan parallels are not that persuasive, once we get past the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence. The most comparable pagan myth that preceded the life of Jesus might be the story of a demi-god named Asclepius. Even so, the only thing that is really similar is that he, like Jesus, was known to be a healer, and according to the myth, raised someone from the dead.

Most of the pagan comparisons rely on taking bits and pieces from different ancient myths and figures that pre-dated Jesus and combine them with some real people who post-dated Him. The lengths one must go to in order to piece together a composite figure of Jesus is a bit of a stretch, and frankly, just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

If you go to Barnes & Noble and take a look at the section for romance fiction, you will find cover after cover of helpless women trying to solve the biggest problem in their lives: which handsome and gallant hero will they choose? It’s a tired formula that borders on the ridiculous—but just because tons of romance fiction is out there—it doesn’t negate the idea that real romantic love exists.

The truth is that there are so many silly romantic novels because romance seems to be an insatiable desire of the human condition.

Life in the Roman Empire was brutal, with most people living in poverty, and given such a society, people were naturally looking for hope. They wanted to know that evil would be punished and goodness would be rewarded and that there would be life after death where justice would be done. Like the impetus behind modern romance fiction, this is a common desire of the human condition.

We should expect that stories would emerge that would satisfy this hope for immortality. This doesn’t mean that Jesus actually rising from the dead is fictitious or impossible. If we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which we do), there’s no reason to reject it simply because there may be some similarities in fictional stories.

This Easter, we don’t celebrate Mithras or some other impotent figure of an ancient fairy tale. We celebrate the true and living Savior who conquered death and the grave to save us and reconcile us to God. I pray this post helps you confidently agree with the angel at Jesus’ tomb by saying: He is risen!

Notes:

[1] Lund University Professor and Biblical Scholar T. N. D. Mettinger wrote, “The consensus among modern scholars—nearly universal—is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

D.O.U.B.T.S.: An Evidential Filter For Miracle Claims

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

When it comes to miracles, Christians are often accused of special pleading. We’re quick to accept Christian miracle claims, but we suddenly turn into Richard Dawkins when it comes to miracle claims made by other religions. Why should skeptics start investigating the resurrection of Jesus when we don’t give other miracles the time of day? The truth is that there are dozens of different religions and thousands of miraculous claims out there. So how can the Christian hope to use miracles as an argument for their faith?

But the fact that there are miracle claims in other religions doesn’t require us to dismiss all miracle claims out of hand. Nor is it necessary for us to be haplessly credulous about all historical miracle claims. There’s a middle way. Before examining miracle claims in detail, we can and should run them through a religiously-neutral evidential filter. Failure to pass through such a filter wouldn’t necessarily prove that the miracle didn’t occur, but it does give us reasons to doubt it. From there we can move on to more promising candidates and not waste our time.

So what filter do I have in mind? Dr. Tim McGrew proposed a 6-point DOUBTS filter in his debate with Zachary Moore. DOUBTS is a backronym because Dr. McGrew is a philosophy professor, and well, teachers can’t resist making backronyms. McGrew has co-written the chapter on The Argument from Miracles in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, as well as the entry for Miracles in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, so he’s a bit of a subject matter expert here. Let’s take a look at his filter.

D – DISTANT EVENTS

For starters, the D in DOUBTS stands for distant events. When the first report of a miracle is made only at a significant distance from the alleged event, we have reasons to doubt. So for example, a 2nd-century Greek writer named Philostratus reports that Apollonius of Tyana worked all kinds of wonders. The problem is that many of these wonders often allegedly happened in India, while Philostratus was writing in Greece some 3500 miles away. This is like that socially awkward guy who claims he’s dating a really hot girl who no one has seen from Canada. We have reason to be skeptical.

O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

The O in DOUBTS stands for opinions already established. When miracles confirm or affirm established opinions and prejudices, we have some reasons to be skeptical. So for example, we have reason to doubt Brigham Young’s claim that Joseph Smith walked house-to-house healing a large group of his followers from malaria while living in Illinois. Young was Smith’s predecessor and had already recognized him as God’s special prophet. There are few details in the reports, and the people who preserved them weren’t initially suspicious. They might have credulously latched onto any flimsy claim made about Smith.

U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS

Next up is U – uncertain events. Granting that the event really happened, if it can be explained without implausibility that it was a natural event, we have reasons to be skeptical. If certain saints were said to levitate but clever illusionists can replicate this trick, chances are it wasn’t a miracle. Or for another example, the Talmud tells us about Honi the Circle Drawer. When rain did not come well into the winter, Honi drew a circle in the dust and sat inside it. He then told God that he would not move until it rained. And what do you know–it began to rain. Yet I think we’re all pretty experienced with rain and how it comes and passes. While this could be a miraculous answer to prayer, this also could’ve just been a coincidence and a fully natural occurrence. It’s an uncertain event and nothing on the same level as, say, someone being raised from the dead.

B – BELATED REPORTS

Moving on to B – belated reports. When the first report of a said miracle comes long after the event, we have some serious reasons to be skeptical. Let’s go back to our buddy Apollonius of Tyana. Philostratus wrote his biography 100 years after Apollonius was dead. That’s obviously a long time and any alleged eyewitnesses would’ve long been dead. Or we have the resurrection stories about St. Nicolas. Reportedly there was a horrible famine, an evil butcher lured three children into his house, killed them and pickled them. This baddy was planning to try and pass them off as cured ham. Gross stuff. Saint Nicolas saw through this scheme and allegedly resurrected the kids by making the sign of the cross. The problem is this story was first circulated in Medieval times, hundreds of years after St. Nick was dead.

T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES

Let’s now move on to the T in the DOUBTS filter – Trival miracles. These would be reports of miracles that are unconnected to any significant purpose. They make no real difference to our lives. The basic idea is captured by the Roman poet Horace when he wrote: “Let a god not intervene unless it’s a knot worthy of a god’s untying.” You’ll often hear skeptics ask crazy things like: “well, if I told you that I have a friend who flew around the room by flapping his arms, died, rose again and turned my sofa into a donkey all in one evening, would you believe me?” Well, why would God be behind something like that? What deep questions about our destiny does this answer, or what striking doctrines would this confirm? Even if such a story happened, what claim does this supposed miracle make on my life? At the most, this flying man might cause me to conclude that the world is a stranger place than I initially imagined. Such an event serves no significant purpose.

S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES

Finally, we’ve reached the S in the DOUBTS filter. The S stands for self-serving miracle claims. When a supposed miracle serves obvious human motivations like sex, political power, greed, a lust for fame then there’s a huge reason to doubt such a miracle claim. Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba allegedly miraculously manifested clocks and watches but was accused of sexual abuse, money laundering, among other things. The Mormon founder Joseph Smith had ambitions to be the President of the United States and married over 40 different women. There are reasons to think there’s something fishy going on with his so-called revelations.

A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.

Granted, this takes away the coolness of the backronym but I’d add vague reports to the criteria. So for example, after apostatizing from the Mormon church and denying that Joseph Smith was a prophet, Fanny Stenhouse recorded an experience in which she said she saw Smith miraculously heal an old woman named Sister Armstrong who had been bedridden for years. In her account, Stenhouse says that this was not a fake healing. However, she attributes it to “animal magnetism” and not directly associated with God. But that’s all we have is something rather brief in her biography, there’s not a lot of details in the report. We’d have to know a lot more about what was wrong with the old woman, why she was bedridden, and what Smith did to believe it was a genuine miracle. It’s a vague report.

I think this is where we need to be careful as Christians, too. If we just rely on 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 to carry the load for our resurrection apologetic, we give vague evidence that isn’t detailed enough to warrant justified belief. Brief and confusing episodes are arguably compatible with 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 as I’ve argued here. We need the detailed, multisensory, time-extended experiences that we read about in the Gospels to make a strong case.

IS THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS WORTHY OF OUR INVESTIGATION?

Remember that any miracle claim that fails on one or more of these criteria might still be true, but these give us a reasonable basis to not investigate them. I’d argue that the resurrection of Jesus doesn’t run afoul of any of the criteria. Without the aid of a miracle, crucified and buried dead men tend to stay dead. It’s not an uncertain event. The resurrection was proclaimed in the streets of Jerusalem, within weeks after the crucifixion. The disciples stayed in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified (Galatians 2:1,9) even when the church came under heavy persecution. (Acts 7, 12)

For the disciples to preach this so soon after Jesus’ execution that their religious leaders set up was to invite the same type of persecution. They could have waited until things calmed down. But they did not. Peter shifted from denying Jesus to boldly proclaiming his resurrection just 50 days after Jesus was murdered. (Acts 2:22-24). The enemies of Christianity had the means, motive, and opportunity to discredit the story. Jesus claimed that he was the Giver of eternal life, so there’s nothing trivial about this claim.

For more details, see this video:

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?

The skeptic might then ask: aren’t these criteria then a bit self-serving for Christians? As a believer, Dr. McGrew obviously believes the resurrection passes this filter. So isn’t this an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? For those of you who don’t know, the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is where one cherry-picks a data cluster to suit your argument, or finds a pattern to fit a presumption. I don’t believe that’s the case here.

For starters, this criteria cuts against miracle claims that I’d accept. Since I believe in the inspiration of Scripture, I accept that Balaam’s donkey spoke. But I am not asking a skeptic to start their historical investigation there and I think they’re not unreasonable if they’re skeptical that such an event happened. Remember that these criteria are religiously neutral. They’re obviously sensible and keep one from wasting their time chasing after unpromising claims. Each criteria reduces the probability that a genuine miracle occurred, so a skeptic should like them. If one wants to add to this criteria, I’m all ears. I’d personally add that in the case of modern miracles where the person is still alive, medical data would be something I’d like to see.

These criteria should be embraced by the skeptic because it gives them the opportunity to say that they’re not dogmatically rejecting all miracle claims out of hand. I hope this helps show that Christians aren’t necessarily guilty of special pleading. Maybe we reject miracle claims in other religions because they’re often poorly attested.

The Best NEW Ideas from the Best Apologists

Podcast

Want to hear the latest and greatest news from the best of the best in the world of apologetics? Join us for a very special podcast episode from the 2022 National Conference on Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary where Frank teams up with four special guests: Gary Habermas, Alisa Childers, J. Warner Wallace, and Scott Klusendorf. You don’t want to miss it!

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

April 8, 2022/by Frank Turek

Los evangelios son vergonzosos para los apóstoles

Español

By Erik Manning

If you want people to trust their leaders, you usually try to paint them in the best possible light. You don’t go out of your way to undermine their authority. But that’s not what we see in the Gospels. Those who will eventually lead the church often appear impulsive, incompetent, boastful, and stupid. If the Gospels are supposed to be public relations for the apostles, their propaganda team was a dismal failure.

This type of information is what NT scholars call the criteria of shame. In his book, Marginal Jew, Meier writes:

The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone to the trouble of creating material that would only embarrass its creator or weaken his position in arguments with opponents.

Marginal Jew

Those Unbelieving Disciples

Let’s look at the Gospel of Mark, since most believe it to be the oldest. Mark tells us that the disciples were often unbelievers. When they encountered a storm while crossing a lake, the disciples panicked. (Mark 4:35-41) They blatantly accused Jesus of not caring about them, and Jesus rebuked them for not having faith. They were also terrified when they saw Jesus walking on water just two chapters later. (Mark 6:50)

When a man brought his demon-possessed son to his followers, the disciples proved too incompetent to help the boy. Jesus rebuked them for their lack of faith. (Mark 9:17-19) Mark also tells us that Jesus’ own family thought he was crazy. (Mark 3:21) Later we read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that James and Jesus’ other brothers became leaders in the church. (Acts 15, 1 Cor 9:5, Galatians 1-2) So far, the future leaders of Jesus’ church seem like a sorry bunch.

The Disciples Were Slow

Mark also tells us that the disciples were extremely slow learners. They asked questions about Jesus’ parables that he expected them, of all people, to understand. They often missed the main points of the parables (Mark 4:13; 7:18).

Jesus had previously fed a crowd of 5,000 and later 4,000 with a few loaves and fish. Shortly afterward, Jesus said that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. What did the disciples do in response? They quarreled among themselves because they had forgotten to put bread in the boat for the crossing. Jesus had to remind them that food was not their goal or problem. That should have been obvious by then. (Mark 8:14-21)

The Disciples Were Rude

The disciples were notoriously rude. As I mentioned earlier, they accused Jesus of not caring about them when He was sleeping through the storm. Peter had the brilliant idea to rebuke Jesus when He said He was going to be sacrificed. Jesus called Peter Satan in response, so yeah, that didn’t go down well. (Mark 8:31-33)

When people brought little children to be blessed by Jesus, as if they were ogres, his disciples tried to drive them away. (Mark 10:13-14) When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with expensive perfume, Mark tells us that “they rebuked her sharply.” It was not a gentle move. Jesus told them emphatically to leave her alone. She was worth more to Jesus than all of them put together. (Mark 14:4-9)

The disciples were fighting over who was the greatest, and John and James had the courage to ask Jesus if they could sit at his right and left when he came into his kingdom. (Mark 9:33-34, 10:35-37) It is clear that they did not understand the kind of servant leadership that Jesus was modeling.

When things get tough, disciples run

In Jesus’ darkest hour, they boast that they were willing to die rather than abandon him. (Mark 14:31) While Jesus was praying, they all fell asleep. (Mark 14:37-42) And when he was arrested, they all ran away. (Mark 14:50) Peter eventually denied him three times under pressure from a servant girl (Mark 14:66-72), and they all absented themselves on the day of the resurrection. (Mark 16:1-9) Even though Jesus repeatedly told them that he would rise again three days later. (Mark 8:31-32, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, 14:28) Even atheist scholars like Gerd Ludemann use the criterion of shame when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial. (The Resurrection of Christ, p. 162)

Finally, who came to the tomb? Women (Mark 16:1). They were the first eyewitnesses of the empty tomb. This is in itself an embarrassing detail, since the testimony of a woman in the context of the first century had very little weight.

“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, because of the frivolity and boldness of their sex” … (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15).
“Any proof that a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)” … (Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1.8c).

Luke tells us that the disciples thought the women’s testimony was “nonsense.” They did not believe them. (Luke 24:11) 100 years later, Celsus would mock Christians for believing the tales of a hysterical woman. (Against Celsus 2.54)

Again, if this is supposed to be Christian propaganda to make their leaders look good, or to make the resurrection story more convincing, the Gospel writers caused problems for themselves. In the words of scholar N. T. Wright:

“As historians, we are forced to comment that if these accounts had been invented five years later, let alone thirty, forty, fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. Putting Mary in there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists who want to explain to a skeptical public that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But for us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, ever have made this up.”

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Embarrassing Details in the Facts

And it’s not like things are all right in the Book of Acts, either. You know, that book about the apostles taking over leadership after Jesus. You’d think Luke would make it seem like they finally got on track. Instead, we see Paul and Barnabas have a huge fight over bringing Mark (the future Gospel writer!) along because Mark got homesick and left them in the middle of the earlier ministry. (Acts 15:36-40) Mark is mentioned later in Paul’s letters, so apparently, things were patched up later. (Philemon 24)

There were also racist disputes in the nascent church in Jerusalem because the Hellenized Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1)

And although Jesus told them to take the Gospel to all the world, it took a special vision for Peter to finally understand that it was okay to preach to those unclean Gentiles, apparently years later. (Acts 10)

What True Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Luke and Mark hardly make the apostles saints. Now compare this to other Christian propaganda. Eusebius wrote a biography of the Emperor Constantine that was very careful, to say the least. He cleverly omits that Constantine had his own son Crispus and his other wife Fausta killed. Instead, Eusebius makes Constantine out to be a super saint. This is what real propaganda looks like.

It is hard to imagine early Christians inventing embarrassments for themselves when they already had enough trouble from persecution. However, it is difficult to read Mark’s Gospel without getting a negative impression of the apostles. Again, this is the earliest of the Gospels according to most scholars. Eyewitnesses would still have been present, including some of the apostles. These negative statements are strong indications that these things were actually said. NT scholar CEB Cranfield concludes:

“The fact that the material is disconcerting and offensive… will be preserved and will reach Marcos speaks volumes about the general reliability of the sources used by him.”

These self-defeating materials are one more reason why we can trust the Gospels. This kind of evidence does not by itself prove that the Gospels are reliable, but it does lend some support to this view. It is one part of a much larger cumulative case.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Erik Manning is a chapter director for Reasonable Faith located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa . He is a former freelance baseball writer and co-owner of the antique and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.

Original Source of the Blog: https://bit.ly/3DgF9Rs

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Yatniel Vega Garcia

April 8, 2022/by Guest

The religion of the Force (book excerpt)

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.15″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.15″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.15″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.15.1″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”]

By Frank Turek and Frank Zachary Turek

The Star Wars series comprises eleven wonderful movies (some more wonderful than others) that, by design, are infused with overtly religious issues.

George Lucas said, “I put the Force into the movies in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people — more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system.”

He admits that he wants to get young people to at least think about the big questions in life: “Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God? Just getting young people to think at that level is what I’ve been trying to do in the films.”

Not bad for Hollywood! But what kind of answers do the movies provide to viewers, and how do they compare to Christianity?

Lucas claims he’s not trying to direct viewers to definite answers. “What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.”[1]

Of course, it was unavoidable that his movie would depict a specific kind of worldview with its own view of god. The Force isn’t a Christian view of God. The god of Star Wars is closest to the god of pantheism — it is omnipresent and binds the universe together, but the Force makes no moral demands on its users.

Moral demands are, of course, part of Christianity, which often uses the same light-versus-darkness language found in Star Wars. God calls us to be in the light, as He is (1 John 1:7). Those who are in sin are depicted as being in darkness, while those who have accepted Christ as their Savior are in the light of the Lord. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul writes:

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness, and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:8–11

This idea of affiliating oneself with the light separates Christianity from any type of Force-based religion in a big way. The Force itself is quite clearly neutral — equally accessible to both sides and not preferring one over the other. Since the Force is not personal, it can’t command anyone to do good with its power.

In this way, pantheism is a lot like atheism. Whether you call nature “the Force” or simply matter and energy, you have no grounds for objective morality. Impersonal nature has no authority or capacity to tell you or anyone what to do.

Yet there is morality throughout the Star Wars series. Although the Force is technically neutral, George Lucas admits Star Wars is a “morality play.” In fact, virtually all good stories, including all superhero movies, are morality plays. There are always good guys and bad guys. Evil always needs to be defeated, which presupposes that there is an objective standard of good we ought to follow. An objective standard of good that all humans are obligated to follow can only exist if a personal God exists.

Since the Star Wars universe doesn’t have a personal God, how is morality justified in the movies? It isn’t. But that’s OK. They’re movies. Not everything has to be justified or make sense. The Force, like Harry Potter’s magic, isn’t meant to be grounded in reality. It’s science-fiction. Just like we don’t see people flying on broomsticks, we don’t see people wielding lightsabers or moving spaceships around with their minds.

While Lucas claims the Force is morally neutral, the audience isn’t. Because God has written the Moral Law on our hearts, we intuitively and immediately know that the Jedi are the heroes of the story and that the light side is morally better than the dark side.

The repeated goal of “balance” in the Force is another difference between the Force of Star Wars and the God of Christianity. “The film is ultimately about the dark side and the light side,” said George Lucas. “Those sides are designed around compassion and greed — we all have those two sides of us — and we have to make sure that those two sides of us are in balance.”

This is really an odd statement to make.[2] Do we really want a “balance” between compassion and greed or between other forms of good and evil? Can you imagine your grandma telling you that as long as you do just as many nice things to the little boy next door, you can do all the bad things to him you want? Christians (and all people) should be fighting to eradicate evil completely, not balance it with good.

Furthermore, contrary to the Force of Star Wars, God and Satan are not “in balance,” as if they are equal and opposite forces. As we saw in the introduction, God is the one sovereign power, and all other creatures derive their power from Him. Just as evil cannot exist without good, Satan cannot exist without God. Neither can the angels and demons. Neither can we.

C. S. Lewis put it well, “Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.”[3]

The Christian concept of faith is also different from the religion of the Force. In Star Wars,faith means not trusting your senses, but your feelings. It’s why Obi-Wan prompted Luke to turn off his targeting computer and trust his feelings.

Christianity is exactly the opposite. Faith is trusting in what you have good reasons to believe is true, and the primary way you get those reasons is by using your senses. Once you’ve discovered those reasons, you don’t trust your feelings when they contradict the facts. Feelings are fickle and subject to changing emotions. Feelings change, but facts don’t.

In Star Wars, the more faith you have, the more power you have. That’s why Yoda can lift the spaceship out of the mud on Dagobah while Luke cannot. But that’s not the way the real world works.

Imagine you and your friend get on a flight to Hawaii. If you totally trust the pilots but your friend is scared to death (your faith is strong but his is weak), does that mean you’ll get there but he’ll crash? Of course not. Once he’s on the plane, the strength of his faith isn’t the issue. The skill of the pilots is. It’s the same in Christianity. It’s not the amount of faith that has power — the faith of a mustard seed is enough. Instead, power lies in who you put your faith in. Jesus, not humanity, is the source of our power.

Taken from Hollywood Heroes: How Your Favorite Movies Reveal God by Frank Turek and Zach Turek. Copyright ©2022. Used by permission of NavPress. All rights reserved. Represented by Tyndale House Publishers, a Division of Tyndale House Ministries.

Notes

[1] These quotes are from an interview Bill Moyers conducted with George Lucas in 1999, the transcripts of which are available here and here.

[2] Some may claim that by “balance” Lucas means the moderation between extremes that pantheists often advocate (signified by the yin and yang symbol). But if that’s the case, why would he claim we should want compassion and greed to be in balance?

[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (London: MacMillan, 1952), 50–51.

The Big Bang and Friends of the World

2. Does God Exist?, Philosophy of Science, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”- James 4:4 NIV

James 4:4 warns Christians to not become a “friend of the world” because the world is God’s enemy. What does that mean, though? The other day someone told me that I was in violation of that verse because I believed the “atheistic theory” of the big bang and used it as evidence that God exists. Did James mean to communicate that Christians cannot recognize when an unbeliever or group of unbelievers have a correct view of some aspect of reality? Or did he intend to communicate something else? Before I get to the specific accusation, let’s examine what actually concerns James in his letter.

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

When we read all of James’ letter, we see the answer. Consider James 1:14-15:

“…each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.”- (NIV)

James is talking about having the same evil desires as the world- not necessarily believing the same way about some feature of reality. James is emphasizing that we must be committed to truth not feelings or desires. If an unbeliever believes something that is true about reality that we also believe is true about reality, James does not condemn our agreement. In fact, agreement about reality may be used as a springboard for evangelism (1 Peter 3:15) and bringing the unbeliever to Christ. Enemies of God do not intentionally point others to Christ. Enemies of God do not condemn evil desires. Condemning evil desires and pointing others to Christ are necessary steps in presenting the Gospel. Enemies of God have no such interest.

It is not that having agreement with unbelievers regarding true beliefs about reality that makes us “friends of the world” in the sense that James is speaking. It is having agreement with them regarding sinful desires that makes us “friends of the world” and thus enemies of God. We certainly could allow our sinful desires to manipulate the truth into justifying sin (which will always be logically fallacious, by the way), but is that what has happened with Christians who have accepted big bang cosmology?

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

Contrary to popular Christian thinking, the big bang theory is about the furthest from a naturalistic theory as they come. It has so many strong theistic implications that naturalists have tried for over a century to undermine it and have only in recent decades finally come to accept it as a community. But that acceptance is reluctant and is often accompanied by failed attempts to weasel out of the absolute beginning and exquisite fine-tuning implied by this rapid expansion event. The big bang necessarily requires a cause that is outside of space and time, is mind-blowingly intelligent and powerful, and caused the creation of this universe out of literally no thing (creatio ex nihilo) for His purposes. The big bang creation event simultaneously provides powerful evidence for Christian theism and against naturalism.

It is not the science of big bang cosmology that made big bang cosmology so reprehensible to naturalists; it was the theistic and thus moral implications. The world does hate all Christians, whether those Christians believe that the big bang was the creation event described in Genesis 1:1 or if they do not. The world hates us not because we followed the evidence where it leads, but the world hates us because of where (or more accurately, to Whom) the evidence leads. There is no way that big bang cosmology allows someone to justify their evil desires; in fact, it does the exact opposite, and that is why it was so vehemently opposed by atheists for so long.

The fact that the naturalistic enemies of big bang cosmology have been compelled by the continually increasing evidence for the big bang to accept that it describes how our universe came into existence provides powerful evidence of its truth. It does so just as Jesus’ empty tomb is strongly evidenced by the fact that Jesus’ enemies (the scribes and Pharisees) were compelled by the evidence to accept that His tomb was empty. If “enemy attestation” provides powerful evidence that Jesus’ tomb was empty, then it also provides powerful evidence that the big bang occurred (see Evidence for the Empty Tomb of Jesus and Big Bang Cosmology).

In Romans 1, the Apostle Paul affirms that unbelievers have access to the same data of nature as Christians do. As a result, unbelievers and Christians will believe some of the same things about the creation. Paul is adamant that nature is so clear in its revelation that unbelievers are, in fact, without excuse in their denial of God. When unbelievers discover and features of creation, no doubt those features will point to their Creator. This is exactly what is going on when believers and unbelievers examine the evidence for the big bang. The world hates Christians because we do not share and we even condemn their evil desires and actions. And the world hates big bang cosmology because they know that they stand condemned, without excuse, by the images they witness through the lenses of their telescopes.

The Foundation for Morality

But despite that strong testimony of creation to God as the Creator, many Christians still insist that big bang cosmology is a naturalistic theory. The concern is that it does away with God as an objective, moral foundation for society, and, from their view, the moral degradation that we see in culture (see my previous articles “Compromising the Kingdom” and “Unrecognized Agreement and Unity“) is a result of a culture that has accepted big bang cosmology and used it as an excuse to do away with God. But because big bang cosmology is no friend of naturalism, it should not be rejected on the false grounds that it is such a friend to the naturalist and a morally debauched society.

As mentioned above, it is true that many naturalists, skeptics, and unbelievers hold to big bang cosmology, but it is the non-theistic philosophies that have opened our culture to the moral decay that we see. God is the foundation for objective morality. God is the source of the Image of God found in all humans. And the Image of God is the foundation of humans’ intrinsic value, free agency, and moral culpability (see my posts “Why Is The Image of God So Important?” and “Do Humans Have Intrinsic Value?“). Not only have Christians who affirm big bang cosmology held tightly to the very Foundation (God) of objective morality and the Image of God, they have hard, scientific evidence of the existence of that Foundation via big bang cosmology (again, Romans 1, in action).

Conclusion

The idea that Christians, who accept the evidence God has provided for how and when He created the world, have somehow become or want to become friends with the world is misguided. Anyone who makes this accusation against a fellow Christian simply does not understand the theistic implications of big bang theory nor do they recognize that atheists saw those implications and resisted because of those implications, yet they were eventually compelled by the evidence that God has provided to us by His fully reliable actions (creation) to accept it. Even if one does not agree that the creation testifies to the big bang creation event, they cannot honestly continue to claim that the big bang is a naturalistic, anti-God theory.

Overcoming Apathy and the Straw Man Argument

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

As Christians, we are told to always be ready to give an answer for our faith. But for many of us, the opportunity seldom arises. In fact, by and large, it seems we are faced with apathy and indifference. Struggling to get past this with someone – to get them to actually think about the Christian message – requires the apologist to first deal with the source of the apathy.

One common source, in my experience, is what can be called the Santa Factor. This is the belief that Christians are simply deluding themselves when they believe in a God who will “deliver presents” to them when they die. Talking to skeptics about the rewards God has in store for those who place their trust in Him has little impact. It seems as real to them as the prospect of Santa leaving presents under their tree.

I had this confirmed recently in a conversation with an unbeliever. Seeing her indifference, I told her I felt like I was trying to talk to her about what presents she was hoping for from Santa, while she was just hanging back, secretly laughing at the absurdity of the whole concept. “It’s like I’m trying to list the reasons that there is a North Pole and flying reindeer,” I said, “and you are just politely nodding and wondering why so many people believe this … nonsense.” I asked her whether that was close to what she thought, and her reply was a candid “yes.” She thought the analogy to Santa was a perfect one, she said, one that captured her feelings in a very precise way.

Once this mindset is made clear, it’s easy to understand why my arguments gain no traction. Despite the soundness of the logic used in building my case for Christianity, to the unbeliever, I might as well be trying to explain how elves could conceivably build toys or how reindeer might possess gravity-altering organs. Since there are many reasons to believe that there is no Santa, and no reasons to believe the contrary, that conversation ends before it begins.

I have, as yet, found no sure-fire way to overcome this Santa Factor. I’d be interested to hear from any apologists who have. I do believe there is a necessary first step, however, and that is to show the skeptic that the Santa Factor is actually a variant of the “straw man” fallacy. Setting up a straw man involves defining the other side’s argument in an unfair or misleading way, and then concluding that you have the better argument when you knock down this “straw man.” When skeptics think of Christianity, they often picture a combination of strange images – Father Time with his flowing white beard, angels dancing on the heads of pins, virgin births, cannibalism, and strange “miracles.” A jumble of such images leaves the skeptic feeling comfortable rejecting the whole of Christianity as based on primitive superstitions and beliefs. Like the Santa myth, these beliefs might bring some comfort, and they’re great for tradition and ritual, but they are not really true. It’s all just a myth, based largely on “faith,” which translates roughly in their view to “wishful thinking.”

So, with that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the analogy. Santa, of course, is the supposed source of the gifts found under Christmas trees every Christmas morning. This explanation works for small children – giving them a wonderful period of anticipation and their parents a lever for a bit of behavior modification as kids struggle to remain on the “nice” list – but a moment’s reflection as a child matures would reveal that no one person could possibly build and deliver an endless stream of worldwide gifts. Not to mention keeping straight who gets what.

But considering the issue more critically, discovering that there is no Santa is not cause for concluding that there are no gifts under the tree, or that they appeared on their own. No, logic dictates that someone put the gifts there, someone with knowledge of the child, access to the home, and knowledge of the child’s wish list.

We too have “presents under our tree” that cry out for explanation. After all, we live in a universe, and on a planet, that are fine-tuned to support life. Life emerged on this planet at some point in the past and some of that life became conscious and intelligent. With that consciousness and intelligence, we can perceive and appreciate beauty and can argue about right and wrong, assuming as we do that there is a thing called morality that exists and should guide us. All these things need to be explained, and blithely concluding that God can’t be that explanation is not a rational move. Instead, the skeptic should embark upon an examination of the possible alternatives available through the use of thought and reason. Which worldview has a better explanation for all of this? Atheistic naturalism may have made sense in Darwin’s day when the universe was thought to be infinite in duration and DNA was not even suspected as the reason life displays such ordered variation. But today? Is it really plausible to assume that all the magnificence we see around us just happened on its own, with no guiding hand?

Consider: astrophysicists tell us that the universe arose from nothing 14 billion years ago. This means the universe, and time itself began to exist. But since all things that come into being require an adequate source, logic supports the conclusion that an intelligent, powerful, and transcendent being set it all in motion. Biologists today seek to make sense of the tremendous body of information that is encoded in DNA. The billions of lines of what is akin to computer code direct the construction of all life on this planet and understanding how to work with it has brought remarkable benefits to humanity. But wherever we find information, we must, of course, conclude that an intelligent source is at work. There are countless other questions that need an answer: how can the atheist explain the origin of life? If even the simplest form of cellular life contains millions of lines of DNA code, believing that it magically assembled itself from inert matter is, well, just as difficult to swallow as Santa making it down the chimney. The list of questions continues: from where does human intelligence come? How is it that inert matter became conscious and self-aware? Why do we have free will? If the universe determines all outcomes, as the secularist believes, then the free will we all intuitively recognize we possess is simply an illusion.

In the end, it really does take more blind – uncritical -faith to accept the secular view. The Christian worldview, by contrast, holds that an infinite, personal, and loving God created this universe, and us, for a purpose, and then revealed Himself to us in history. He did this in a way that provided evidence, both from the study of nature and from the personal testimony of witnesses who were so sure of what they saw and experienced – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – that they suffered martyrdom rather than deny it. (Contrasting the two worldviews in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but the case is well made here and here.)

Will this overcome the Santa Factor? It should if the skeptic really gives it a fair hearing. But that of course depends on the skeptic and how open he is to seeing through his little game of make-believe.

Castrate Children? The President says “yes”!

Podcast

President Biden said this week that all trans people are made in the image of God. He’s absolutely right. Everyone is. But the President then ignored the end of the verse: “God made them male and female”.

The President then went on to affirm “gender-affirming care” FOR CHILDREN that includes hormones, puberty blockers, chemical castration drugs, “top” surgeries — elective mastectomies and breasts enhancements — and “bottom” surgeries — removal of genitals. Again, FOR CHILDREN! Frank has a lot to say about this madness and the religion of sexual license.

Frank also reveals that he spoke to 45 Christians living in Ukraine via Zoom this week. He gives an eyewitness report from one of them living in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine— right in the path of the Russian attack. Are our American news reports true? How many civilians are being killed? By who? Are there really Nazis in Ukraine? Is war justified?

Links referenced in the show:

Biden Says Trans People ‘Made in Image of God,’ Parents Must ‘Affirm’ Identity: https://bit.ly/3wXoZLm
Biden Admin Supports Trans Surgeries, Puberty Blockers for Youth: https://bit.ly/3wTyz20
Gender Affirming Care and Young People: https://bit.ly/3NGKupH
Former trans folks flood social media with their stories for #DetransAwarenessDay: https://bit.ly/3iUOBQT
Jesus and the Case for War: https://bit.ly/38n4EVN

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

April 1, 2022/by Frank Turek

¿Son los cristianos los nuevos extremistas? Sí, y está bien

Español

By Natasha Crain

My blog and podcast have been on hiatus as I finish writing my new book, Faithfully Different: Regaining Biblical Clarity in a Secular Culture.

Faithfully Different is about the fact that Christians with a biblical worldview are a minority in North America these days and how the secular worldview around us is putting increasing pressure on what we believe, how we think, and how we live. I wrote it to help Christians gain greater clarity in understanding the fundamental differences between the secular and biblical worldviews, both to strengthen our faith and our ability to be salt and light to others. I’m so excited to share it with you! Faithfully Different comes out in February and I’ll be announcing pre-order details here in the coming weeks.

As you read this, you may be wondering if Christians are really a “minority” in America. I talk about this at length in the first chapter, but here’s the bottom line. About 65 percent of Americans self-identify as Christians—certainly not a minority. But when researchers ask specific questions about beliefs and behaviors, about 10 percent of Americans have what would be considered a “biblical worldview” (they hold core beliefs consistent with the historic Christian faith and display consistent behavior). Furthermore, researchers have found that those who hold a biblical worldview are not only a minority in America, they are also a minority in the church .

Now, there are many minority groups that are not relevant to people. I’m sure there are a few who, for example, eat pickles for breakfast every morning. Nobody cares . But it’s clear to Christians who have a biblical worldview that secular culture does care about our existence… because it hates everything we stand for.

In a very real sense, we are increasingly seen as a small, extremist faction of society.

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

Read or listen to any popular media outlet that talks about “conservative Christians” and you will immediately know by the tone of that term that it is not being used as a neutral description. It is now offensive and is accompanied by a shaking of the head and eyes among the supposedly more enlightened culture. (Note that I am not necessarily talking about conservatives in a political sense; in secular usage “conservative” is a generic label referring to Christians who disagree with popular secular views. A political correlation is common, but it is not exclusively that.)

The implication is that we are those people — the rebels who don’t go along with the rest of society in the direction it wants to go. We are seen as an obstacle to what has been culturally defined as progress because of how different our visions are from the popular secular mainstream of today.

The result is that secularists now view us with varying degrees of indignation. Strange as it may sound to many Christians, we are the new extremists —a minority group whose views are regarded as 1) fundamentally different from the “average” views of secular culture and 2) troubling to the rest of society.

When you sense that culture views us this way, it can seem pretty bizarre. After all, Christianity has been the most influential religion in North America for the past 400 years, but now it’s extremist (and worrying) to believe that the Bible is the Word of God?

While there is no reason to agree with secularists about how troubling our views are, there is every reason to agree that our worldview is extremely different from the dominant secular worldview in the culture today. We are certainly “extreme” in that sense—and we should gladly accept that fact if we fully understand the nature of the biblical worldview.

Specifically, we are extremists in three main areas.

First of all, we are extremists in our source of authority.

The fundamental difference between those with a biblical worldview and those with a secular one is the source of authority. Each person, as part of their worldview, has an ultimate authority that they believe speaks the truth when it speaks about the world and the right way to act in it. For Christians with a biblical worldview, that source of authority is God, and we believe that He has revealed these truths in the Bible.

In secularism, the source of a person’s authority is one’s own self . Secularism is not what is left when you simply strip away what are known as a person’s religious beliefs from their worldview. When you throw away the authority of God, you are not left without authority—you are left with authority over yourself .

This difference in authority is found at the root of almost every difference between the biblical and secular worldviews.

When for the vast majority the authority for truth is themselves, it should not be surprising that Christians come to very different conclusions about the nature of reality than the culture will arrive at. Even the phrase “The Bible says…” with the assumption that what follows is objective truth that supersedes personal opinion is extreme compared to the current average view where the individual rules supreme.

And for those who regard the Bible as merely the written record of man’s thoughts about God (and nothing more), such extremism is troubling . How can Christians be compelled to follow new social norms if they do not see truth as subject to change? With fellow secularists whose feelings determine what is truth, society can “progress” through the push and pull of shifting popular consensus. But what about Christians who believe they have an authority that does not change over time? That is an infuriating barrier that infuriates secularists.

Secondly, we are extremists in our understanding of morality.

From the first point it follows that Christians with a biblical worldview are going to have great differences with secularists when it comes to morality.

For those whose authority is God and who believe that He has revealed Himself and made His will known in the Bible, the Bible will have the final say in what is right or wrong… no matter what we think, no matter what anyone thinks, and no matter what society thinks. From a secular perspective, what an obstinate view !

When your authority is yourself, there is no objective basis for defining morality for all people. In essence, each person is his or her own God. What is right or wrong does not depend on what someone else has said—whether God or not—it depends on what you have said.

But wait! Wouldn’t that imply that secularists should accept the Christian perspective on morality as another valid perspective?

Absolutely.

But they don’t. And that’s where secularists fail to live consistently with their own self-authority-based worldview.

If they were consistent, they would say this: “Hey, we understand that your Christian perspective is just as valid as anyone else’s because each individual is his or her own authority and there is no objective basis for claiming that something must be right or wrong for all people. But some of us have a (fill in the blank) view about (fill in the blank), and we want to try to convince you to change your mind! But if you don’t want to change, that’s okay because everyone’s perspective is just as valid. Have a nice day.”

But instead, they say this : “The (fill in the blank) view about (fill in the blank) is the objectively correct perspective for all people, and if you disagree, you are wrong …and you are evil .”

Without an objective basis for morality that comes from a moral legislator higher than humans, the closest thing secularists can come to a moral standard that applies to all people is popular consensus . That is why it is so important for secular culture to continually push its perspectives on morality into every possible channel—education, media, entertainment, business, and so on. The more people buy into a particular moral perspective, the more popular consensus is achieved, and the more secularists have a new standard for saying what is right.

But again, Christians with a biblical worldview are not bound by such changes. No matter how popular a new idea of morality is, if it conflicts with what Christians believe God himself has said, the popular consensus will not become our new standard. And that “extreme” perspective relative to the average culture is immensely frustrating to nonbelievers.

Third, we are extremists for believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

This point follows from the previous two. Because Christians view God and His Word as the source of authority for their lives, and because their views on morality are a consequence of those beliefs, Christians believe that judgment on matters of truth can be objectively valid—and not merely an opinion.

In Faithfully Different, I describe the tenets of the secular worldview this way: Feelings are the primary guide, happiness is the primary goal, judging is the primary sin, and God is the primary imagination. Judging is the greatest sin in secularism because when feelings are your guide and happiness is your goal, no one has the authority or right to tell you what only you can know (how you feel and what makes you happiest). In the self-authority worldview, it is absurd and insulting for someone else to come and observe another person’s life journey and claim to know more than that person how they should or should not live.

But that implies that there is no God who has provided a reliable and authoritative source of information.

From a biblical worldview, God has granted that in the Bible. And if the God of the universe has told us what is true about reality, it is not absurd or offensive to share what He has said—it is literally the only reasonable thing to do since the God who created everything surely knows more than any human.

Jesus never said the world would understand us. To a large extent, this is to be expected from secular cultural perspectives. What concerns me most is when Christians fail to understand how extremely different the biblical worldview must be from the secular one. In many ways, secularists who think those with a biblical worldview are extremists relative to the average society understand this more than self-proclaimed Christians who see only minimal differences.

When we truly have a biblical worldview, we should understand that we are indeed “extremists” for today’s culture…and accept it. It’s not only okay to be extremist in this, it’s beautiful—because it’s what God Himself calls us to be.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Natasha Crain is a blogger, author, and national speaker who is passionate about equipping Christian parents to raise their children with an understanding of how to make a case and defend their faith in the midst of an increasingly secular world. She is the author of two parenting apologetics books: Talking with Your Kids about God (2017) and Keeping Your Kids on God’s Side (2016). Natasha holds an MBA in marketing and statistics from UCLA and is certified in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. She has worked as a marketing executive and adjunct professor and lives in Southern California with her husband and three children.

Original Blog: https://bit.ly/3iTHIzc

Translated by Gustavo Camarillo

Edited by Elenita Romero

April 1, 2022/by Guest

The Bible Story You Are In

Podcast

What do you think about when you hear the word “God”? Too many of us have false knowledge about God. We think God loves us more if we obey Him and less if we don’t. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, there is a story in the Bible— a story you are actually in— that just could revolutionize your understanding of God and His grace. Frank unpacks that story in this episode. Get ready to look at the prodigal son passage and God Himself in a new light.

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

March 31, 2022/by Frank Turek

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

Notes:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

D – DISTANT EVENTS

O – OPINIONS ALREADY ESTABLISHED

U – UNCERTAIN EVENTS

B – BELATED REPORTS

T – TRIVIAL MIRACLES

S – SELF-SERVING MIRACLES

A PERSONAL CRITERION I’D ADD – V – VAGUENESS.

THE TEXAS SHARPSHOOTER FALLACY?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Those Unbelieving Disciples

The Disciples Were Slow

The Disciples Were Rude

When things get tough, disciples run

Embarrassing Details in the Facts

What True Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Notes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction

Being The World’s Friends and Enemies of God

The Big Bang Is Hardly An Atheistic Theory

The Foundation for Morality

Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Understanding Christian “Extremism”

First of all, we are extremists in our source of authority.

Secondly, we are extremists in our understanding of morality.

Third, we are extremists for believing that judgment can be objectively valid.

Recommended resources in Spanish: