By Brian Chilton
One of the most fascinating historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection is the transformation it brought to individuals who claimed to have experienced the risen Jesus. Interestingly, these experiences occurred so early that Richard Bauckham contends that the “earliest Christology was already in nuce the highest Christology. All that remained was to work through consistently what it could mean for Jesus to belong integrally to the unique identity of the one God.”[1] Of the minimal facts accepted, Gary Habermas notes that the four “core” facts accepted about Jesus consist of Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the experiences the disciples had which led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, the transformation of the disciples, and the conversion of Paul.[2] Thus, the transformation of the disciples occurred early in the history of the church and, thereby, holds tremendous value for the historical researcher. These experiences profoundly impacted the disciples’ theology—accepting that Jesus was now exalted to a “position of heavenly glory”[3]—and even emboldened them to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. The resurrection appearances of Jesus profoundly affected four men which will be the focus of this article.
Transformation of the Troubled Peter
While Peter was excited to see the risen Jesus to the point that he willingly jumped out of a boat and swam to shore just to see Jesus (John 21:7), he was dealing with his own inner turmoil. In the courtyard during Jesus’s trial, Peter had denied that he had known Jesus three times to a woman who served as the high priest’s maid (John 18:25-27). Jesus had already prognosticated Peter’s denial beforehand which led Peter to a time of great despair and agony (Luke 22:61). Peter must have thought that Jesus would never use him again for ministry. Why would Jesus ever trust him again? However, multiple pieces of evidence suggest that Jesus appeared to Peter privately (Mark 16:7; Luke 24:12; and 1 Cor. 15:5). Yet the story of Peter’s ministerial transformation comes from an encounter he had with the risen Jesus on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. While eating breakfast by a fire on the seashore, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him (John 21:15-19). Peter acknowledged that he did. The risen Jesus reinstated Peter back into the ministry. After his encounter with Jesus on the coast—the third time that Jesus had met exclusively with the disciples after his resurrection—Peter never again denied that he knew Jesus. Rather, he boldly proclaimed Jesus up until the time that he died for Christ. Church tradition holds that he was crucified upside down at Rome in c. AD 64 because he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. This was documented by historian Eusebius of Caesarea[4] and Origen of Alexandria.
Transformation of the Skeptical Thomas
Thomas had followed Jesus from the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry. Oddly, he was not found with the disciples when Jesus first appeared to them (John 20:24-25). Where was Thomas when Jesus first appeared to the disciples? Had he given up on the ministry? Did he seek to reopen his old business, whatever that may have been? No one could not blame Thomas as he had just witnessed his leader crucified to a tree. His investment in Jesus died when Jesus’s corpse was placed in a tomb—or so he thought. Regardless of his activities, he doubted the validity of the disciples’ claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Again, no one could blame Thomas for his skepticism. While different Jewish sects held divergent opinions concerning the Messiah, none of them anticipated that the Messiah would rise from the dead before the end of time. Additionally, dead people do not normally rise from the dead. Thomas was justified in his disbelief. However, everything changed when Thomas encountered the risen Jesus. Jesus challenged Thomas to place his fingers in the nail prints of his hands and to thrust his hand into Jesus’s side (John 20:27-29). Then, Jesus challenged Thomas by saying, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).
Thomas did not remain “doubting Thomas.” Rather, he became “believing Thomas.” According to tradition and the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, the church cast lots to see which part of the world each disciple would serve. Thomas’s lot would lead him to India. The disciple would encounter the kings of the region and would not have the best relationship with them. The wife of King Misdaeus converted to Christianity to the king’s disdain. The king’s wife disobeyed him and instead followed apostolic Christianity which enraged the king. Eventually, the king ordered Thomas’s execution in Madras, India. While not all the information about Thomas’s ministry in India can be verified, it does appear that there are good reasons to believe that Thomas died in some manner for his faith while in India.[5]
Transformation of the Envious James
“Envious James” is used for this section, but it is merely one possibility to describe why James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry. The Gospels note that the brothers and sisters of Jesus did not initially believe in him (John 7:5). However, James later had a change of heart to the point that he served as the pastor of the Jerusalem Church. What happened? The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lists James as one of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. James’s life was radically transformed because of the resurrection. The Jewish historian Josephus records the later martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. He writes,
“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others … and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[6]
Like Peter and Thomas, the resurrection transformed James to the point that he was willing to give his life for the Jesus that he previously spurned. The resurrection changed James’s negative connotations about Jesus into worship. Quite an extraordinary thing, don’t you think?
Transformation of the Adversary Paul
Paul’s transformation is the most popular of the four. Paul, otherwise known as Saul, was a persecutor of the church. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a disciple of the famed Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and on track to become a member of the Sanhedrin. Yet Paul was dramatically changed on a road trip to Damascus. Paul had hoped to imprison or even murder the disciples of Jesus (Acts 9:1). He had written permission by the Jewish authorities to imprison any disciple of Jesus in Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9:2). As Paul made his march to Damascus, the risen Jesus appeared to Paul in a dazzling array of power. The risen Jesus inquired, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4). Jesus identified himself and instructed Paul to go into the city. From that moment, Paul became a disciple of Christ. The disciples were not overly keen on the idea of accepting Paul into their fold. They thought that Paul was staging a sabotage. But as the risen Jesus told Ananias, “This man is my chosen instrument to take my name to the Gentiles, kings, and Israelites” (Acts 9:15).
Paul would suffer for the cause of Christ as he endured many hardships throughout his lifetime. Nonetheless, he endured until the very end. Tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in Rome around the same time that Peter died by crucifixion. This is verified by Tertullian, implying that Paul was considered a martyr by the end of the second century at least in northern Africa.[7] In his seminal work, McDowell lists Paul’s death as “the highest possible probability”[8] and that the beheading of Paul is “more probable than not.”[9]
Conclusion
From the four individuals listed, it is evident that the resurrection of Jesus brought about a major transformation in the lives of those who encountered the risen Jesus. Furthermore, the loving compassion of Jesus is shown by the way he forgave Peter of his past indiscretions, his willingness to provide evidence to the skeptic, his willingness to bring in even those of his family who had hurt him in the past, and the powerful means by which he accepted even the repentance of his former enemies. The risen Jesus continues to transform lives even today. Only eternity will tell how many souls have been transformed by this mysterious, powerful, and loving Savior who continues to seek and save the lost.
Notes
[1] 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), 235.
[2] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 162.
[3] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2015), 93.
[4] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 5.3.1.
[5] Despite the difficulties surrounding the Thomas martyrdom tradition, McDowell argues that the martyrdom of Thomas is “more probable than not.” Sean McDowell, Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (London, UK: Routledge, 2008), 173.
[6] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.200-203.
[7] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.
[8] McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 113.
[9] Ibid., 114.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. 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 enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years. He currently serves as a clinical chaplain.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/mmfnj9C
More Hidden Themes in the Bible with Dr. Chip Bennett
PodcastDr. Chip Bennett rejoins Frank for another fascinating and revealing look into the hidden themes of the Bible (if you haven’t heard the first show in this series, go back two weeks and listen to “Hidden Themes in the Bible”). This time Dr. Bennett further unpacks how we should interpret the Bible to discover some of its literary themes. They discuss one theme that begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation (the City of God); one in Acts 12, and the literary theme of the Book of Revelation that comes right out of the Old Testament. God’s tapestry is amazing! Go to www.reachnextgen.com to learn more!
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Resurrection Defense Series: Transformation of Eyewitnesses
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Brian Chilton
One of the most fascinating historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection is the transformation it brought to individuals who claimed to have experienced the risen Jesus. Interestingly, these experiences occurred so early that Richard Bauckham contends that the “earliest Christology was already in nuce the highest Christology. All that remained was to work through consistently what it could mean for Jesus to belong integrally to the unique identity of the one God.”[1] Of the minimal facts accepted, Gary Habermas notes that the four “core” facts accepted about Jesus consist of Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the experiences the disciples had which led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, the transformation of the disciples, and the conversion of Paul.[2] Thus, the transformation of the disciples occurred early in the history of the church and, thereby, holds tremendous value for the historical researcher. These experiences profoundly impacted the disciples’ theology—accepting that Jesus was now exalted to a “position of heavenly glory”[3]—and even emboldened them to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. The resurrection appearances of Jesus profoundly affected four men which will be the focus of this article.
Transformation of the Troubled Peter
While Peter was excited to see the risen Jesus to the point that he willingly jumped out of a boat and swam to shore just to see Jesus (John 21:7), he was dealing with his own inner turmoil. In the courtyard during Jesus’s trial, Peter had denied that he had known Jesus three times to a woman who served as the high priest’s maid (John 18:25-27). Jesus had already prognosticated Peter’s denial beforehand which led Peter to a time of great despair and agony (Luke 22:61). Peter must have thought that Jesus would never use him again for ministry. Why would Jesus ever trust him again? However, multiple pieces of evidence suggest that Jesus appeared to Peter privately (Mark 16:7; Luke 24:12; and 1 Cor. 15:5). Yet the story of Peter’s ministerial transformation comes from an encounter he had with the risen Jesus on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. While eating breakfast by a fire on the seashore, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him (John 21:15-19). Peter acknowledged that he did. The risen Jesus reinstated Peter back into the ministry. After his encounter with Jesus on the coast—the third time that Jesus had met exclusively with the disciples after his resurrection—Peter never again denied that he knew Jesus. Rather, he boldly proclaimed Jesus up until the time that he died for Christ. Church tradition holds that he was crucified upside down at Rome in c. AD 64 because he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. This was documented by historian Eusebius of Caesarea[4] and Origen of Alexandria.
Transformation of the Skeptical Thomas
Thomas had followed Jesus from the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry. Oddly, he was not found with the disciples when Jesus first appeared to them (John 20:24-25). Where was Thomas when Jesus first appeared to the disciples? Had he given up on the ministry? Did he seek to reopen his old business, whatever that may have been? No one could not blame Thomas as he had just witnessed his leader crucified to a tree. His investment in Jesus died when Jesus’s corpse was placed in a tomb—or so he thought. Regardless of his activities, he doubted the validity of the disciples’ claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Again, no one could blame Thomas for his skepticism. While different Jewish sects held divergent opinions concerning the Messiah, none of them anticipated that the Messiah would rise from the dead before the end of time. Additionally, dead people do not normally rise from the dead. Thomas was justified in his disbelief. However, everything changed when Thomas encountered the risen Jesus. Jesus challenged Thomas to place his fingers in the nail prints of his hands and to thrust his hand into Jesus’s side (John 20:27-29). Then, Jesus challenged Thomas by saying, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).
Thomas did not remain “doubting Thomas.” Rather, he became “believing Thomas.” According to tradition and the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, the church cast lots to see which part of the world each disciple would serve. Thomas’s lot would lead him to India. The disciple would encounter the kings of the region and would not have the best relationship with them. The wife of King Misdaeus converted to Christianity to the king’s disdain. The king’s wife disobeyed him and instead followed apostolic Christianity which enraged the king. Eventually, the king ordered Thomas’s execution in Madras, India. While not all the information about Thomas’s ministry in India can be verified, it does appear that there are good reasons to believe that Thomas died in some manner for his faith while in India.[5]
Transformation of the Envious James
“Envious James” is used for this section, but it is merely one possibility to describe why James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry. The Gospels note that the brothers and sisters of Jesus did not initially believe in him (John 7:5). However, James later had a change of heart to the point that he served as the pastor of the Jerusalem Church. What happened? The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lists James as one of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. James’s life was radically transformed because of the resurrection. The Jewish historian Josephus records the later martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. He writes,
Like Peter and Thomas, the resurrection transformed James to the point that he was willing to give his life for the Jesus that he previously spurned. The resurrection changed James’s negative connotations about Jesus into worship. Quite an extraordinary thing, don’t you think?
Transformation of the Adversary Paul
Paul’s transformation is the most popular of the four. Paul, otherwise known as Saul, was a persecutor of the church. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a disciple of the famed Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and on track to become a member of the Sanhedrin. Yet Paul was dramatically changed on a road trip to Damascus. Paul had hoped to imprison or even murder the disciples of Jesus (Acts 9:1). He had written permission by the Jewish authorities to imprison any disciple of Jesus in Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9:2). As Paul made his march to Damascus, the risen Jesus appeared to Paul in a dazzling array of power. The risen Jesus inquired, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4). Jesus identified himself and instructed Paul to go into the city. From that moment, Paul became a disciple of Christ. The disciples were not overly keen on the idea of accepting Paul into their fold. They thought that Paul was staging a sabotage. But as the risen Jesus told Ananias, “This man is my chosen instrument to take my name to the Gentiles, kings, and Israelites” (Acts 9:15).
Paul would suffer for the cause of Christ as he endured many hardships throughout his lifetime. Nonetheless, he endured until the very end. Tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in Rome around the same time that Peter died by crucifixion. This is verified by Tertullian, implying that Paul was considered a martyr by the end of the second century at least in northern Africa.[7] In his seminal work, McDowell lists Paul’s death as “the highest possible probability”[8] and that the beheading of Paul is “more probable than not.”[9]
Conclusion
From the four individuals listed, it is evident that the resurrection of Jesus brought about a major transformation in the lives of those who encountered the risen Jesus. Furthermore, the loving compassion of Jesus is shown by the way he forgave Peter of his past indiscretions, his willingness to provide evidence to the skeptic, his willingness to bring in even those of his family who had hurt him in the past, and the powerful means by which he accepted even the repentance of his former enemies. The risen Jesus continues to transform lives even today. Only eternity will tell how many souls have been transformed by this mysterious, powerful, and loving Savior who continues to seek and save the lost.
Notes
[1] 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), 235.
[2] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 162.
[3] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2015), 93.
[4] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 5.3.1.
[5] Despite the difficulties surrounding the Thomas martyrdom tradition, McDowell argues that the martyrdom of Thomas is “more probable than not.” Sean McDowell, Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (London, UK: Routledge, 2008), 173.
[6] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.200-203.
[7] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.
[8] McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 113.
[9] Ibid., 114.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)
Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. 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 enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years. He currently serves as a clinical chaplain.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/mmfnj9C
Religious Freedom: Behind the Scenes at the State Department
PodcastChristianity and other faiths are under attack around the world. What is our government doing about it? Pam Pryor was a high-ranking official within the United States State Department during the Trump Administration and joins Frank to reveal what goes on behind the scenes at State to support religious freedom around the world. Pam shares some shocking stats and stories that will both be alarming and encouraging. She is also organizing an international summit on religious freedom that meets in Washington July 13-15. Go to www.IRFSummit.com for details.
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿Hay profetas en la Iglesia hoy en día?
EspañolBy Jason Jimenez
Turn on your television and you will surely come across religious programs with someone claiming to speak for God. Go to your local bookstore, and there, I am sure you will find several books written by people who claim to have received divine revelations from God. Go on YouTube, and you will definitely see videos of preachers proclaiming, “Thus saith the Lord.”
This bombardment of “prophetic words” from thousands of voices has undoubtedly caused confusion for many Christians. In one group, you have Christians who get caught up in the sensationalism of the prophetic words espoused by the Word of Faith movement. In another group, you have Christians who doubt prophecy altogether, because they lack the faith to understand its purpose in the body of Christ. And still there are those who do not know what to believe.
So, let’s go back to the Bible to see what it has to say about prophets.
The first thing we notice about Paul is that there are prophets in the Church today. In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul mentions the office of prophet in the church. Not only that, but Paul also describes the gift of prophecy in 1 Corinthians 12:10. In fact, the gift of prophecy is mentioned more than any of the other spiritual gifts. You can find it in these passages: Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:27-29; 13:1-3, 8; 14:6, and in Ephesians 4:11.
That said, it is vital to understand that the office of prophet in modern times is not the same as that of the Old Testament prophets. Before Jesus came to earth, God raised up prophets (Hebrew: nabi, “to utter”) or seers (spokesmen) as national leaders who spoke with specificity and 100% accuracy in their prophecies (Deut. 18:20-22; Jer. 23:28, 31-33). But after Christ’s ascension to heaven and the completion of the written Word, God uses His modern prophets differently than He did Samuel, Daniel, and Isaiah. The writer of Hebrews makes this clear when he opens his letter with these words: “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake long ago unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds” Hebrews 1:1-2 (NASB).
Furthermore, according to 1 Corinthians 14:3-4, the primary function of a prophet now is to edify, comfort, and encourage the Church. However, that does not mean that predictive prophecy is not exercised among some prophets of God. Like Agabus (in Acts 11:27-28), there are times when a prophet will give a prophetic word from God about the future. That is why we must not neglect prophecy in the Church (1 Thessalonians 5:19-21). But again, the primary purpose of the gift of prophecy, in the Church age, is to encourage and exhort one another (1 Cor. 14:31). Prophets are not called by God to generate visions that others in the church cannot judge (1 Cor. 14:29).
Therefore, we should not look to the prophets for a new revelation, but for an exhortation in accordance with the illumination of the Scriptures.
Finally, the following six indicators will help you distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jimenez is president of STAND STRONG Ministries and the author of Challenging Conversations: A Practical Guide to Discuss Controversial Topics in the church. For more information, visit www.standstrongministries.org .
Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/9mwmCNy
3 Apologetics Strategies from the Book of Acts
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Alisa Childers
This simple question is credited with carrying Christianity into Ethiopia. (1) Acts chapter 8 tells of Philip being led to the desert by an angel to meet an officer from the court of the Queen of Ethiopia. Philip finds him reading an Isaiah scroll containing prophecies about the Messiah. At this point, Philip could have walked up and boldly declared, “I have been sent to you today to proclaim the good news of Jesus the Messiah!” But he didn’t. He met this man right where he was at and asked a good question, which then led to an explanation of the gospel. This is apologetics at its best.
Apologetics is sometimes called “pre-evangelism” because it can help clear intellectual obstacles in the way of faith. The command to do apologetics is found in 1 Peter 3:15 which tells us to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” The Greek word translated as “defense” is apologia, which is where we get our English word, “apologetics.” In the book of Acts, when the apostles did evangelism, they did apologetics.
They were constantly defending their faith—to religious leaders, political officers, secular philosophers, and average citizens. Here are 3 ways they used apologetics to defend their faith:
1. They defended the gospel, not themselves.
The apostles were no strangers to trials, councils, and prisons. In Acts 4, Peter and John were brought before the Jerusalem high council and were challenged to defend their right to preach the resurrection of Jesus. Peter wasn’t even one sentence into his defense when he began to proclaim the gospel. He didn’t spend his energy trying to clear his name, or avoid prison time—he preached the resurrection of Jesus to the very council that was questioning him.
This example was also followed by the martyr Stephen in chapters 6-7. Stephen was a Jewish Christian who was brought before the council and accused of blasphemy against Moses and God. In his famous speech, he addressed the council by recounting the history of the Jews, pointing out that God’s true prophets have always been rejected. He also stressed that God’s presence isn’t confined to one specific geographical area or temple. On one level, Stephen answered the charges of blasphemy. But even more, he opened the door theologically for the church’s worldwide mission. It was a brilliant defense of the gospel. New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce commented on Stephen’s famous “defense”:
The great preacher Charles Spurgeon said this of Stephen:
When our faith is under fire, it can be tempting to become defensive. But we would be wise to follow the example of the apostles and defend the gospel, not ourselves.
2. They shared eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, not their personal testimonies.
The personal testimonies of the apostles certainly intersected the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection because they were the eyewitnesses. But their message was focused on Jesus, not themselves. In other words, when they shared the gospel, they didn’t talk about what Jesus did for them personally and then simply invite others to have a personal relationship with Him. They testified to the fact that He was crucified, buried, and resurrected, offering salvation to all who would repent and put their faith in Jesus the Messiah. This theme is consistent throughout the book of Acts.
Personal testimony can be a great way to build a relationship, but our testimonies should always point to something greater—the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
3. They knew Scripture but sometimes didn’t use it right away.
The first Christians were Jews who were steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures. When Paul was converted in chapter 9, he immediately began preaching to the Jews in Damascus, “proving that Jesus was the Christ.” In chapter 13, he spoke in the synagogue in Antioch, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures to show the Jews that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In chapter 17, he went into the synagogue in Thessalonica and “reasoned with them from the Scriptures.”
Later in the same chapter, Paul was in Athens conversing with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. These philosophers wouldn’t have accepted the Jewish Old Testament as authoritative, so Paul used a different tactic to get to the gospel. Rather than appeal to the Scriptures, he mentioned their own religious altar with the inscription, “To the unknown god.” He then proceeded to introduce them to the God they didn’t yet know, even quoting their own respected philosophical thinkers. He used this as a tactic to testify to the resurrection of Jesus.
This does not mean that the Scriptures were unimportant or ignored. It just means that sometimes we need to meet people where they are at and start from there.
Conclusion:
The apostles used apologetics creatively, adapting their method to the situation they were in. The common theme among these three methods is that the gospel was always the main point. The apostles kept the focus of their evangelism on the resurrection of Jesus and the hope of saving faith in Him—and we should too!
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
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)
Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set, and Complete Package)
So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)
Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/fmwkNU8
What Does the Common Practice Of Withholding Sex Reveal About Women?
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Wintery Knight
Dennis Prager features a lot of discussions about male-female relationships on his show, particularly during the male-female hour. I think this is one of the parts of his show that I really like best because he knows what he is talking about.
He did a two-part series a while back on 1) male sexuality and 2) what women should do about it within a marriage.
Part 1 is here.
Excerpt:
He then explains the 5 ways that women respond to this.
Here’s one:
And this is the common mistake that some feminist women make because they think that men are just hairy women with no feelings and desires of their own that are distincly theirs. In the past, all women understood how men are different than women, but today almost no younger feminist women do. In fact, many younger women today struggle with the idea that there is anything different about men that they need to learn. The only thing that they need to know is what makes women happy, and that it is everyone else’s job to make women happy so that women can then behave nicely (whatever that means). Younger feminist women today often think that they only need to be in touch with their own feelings – and that men and children simply have to get used to the idea that they have no right to make any demands on a woman – she has no moral obligations in a marriage.
Here’s another from the list:
I think this whole problem of feminist women not understanding men, and of demeaning male feelings and values, is very serious. In my opinion, there is a whole lot of work that needs to be done by feminism-influenced women in order to fix this problem. The best place to learn about this is in Dr. Laura’s book “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. It’s like an application form for a serious relationship. Sex is one thing, but a serious man should insist that a woman take him seriously – and take marriage and children seriously. Pre-marital sex, having fun, getting drunk, and going out, etc. are not the right foundation for a relationship that is defined by the need for mutual self-sacrifice. There is no such thing as a “feminist” marriage – marriage is not about selfishness and playing the victim.
I actually had a conversation with a Christian woman once who said that women should not be obligated to do things that they didn’t feel like doing. I asked her if men were obligated to go to work when they didn’t feel like going. She said yes, and acted as though I were crazy for asking. I just laughed, because she didn’t even see the inconsistency. Many young feminist women today just don’t understand men, and they don’t want to understand them. They just want what they want and in the quickest way possible. Understand the needs of men and children, or how feminist-inspired laws discourage men from committing to marriage and parenting, are of no interest at all.
Part 2 is here.
Excerpt:
He then explains the eight reasons.
Here’s one of them:
This makes the point that many young feminist women today do not really understand that they are, in a sense, capable of changing their husband’s conduct by the way they act themselves. I think that younger feminist women seem to think that their role in the relationship is to sort of do nothing and wait for the man to serve them. But relationships take work, and they take work from both participants.
At the end of the article, Prager makes a general point about women that I think needs to be emphasized over and over and over:
I think that is an excellent question to ask a woman. What does it mean to love a man? I was forwarded one amazing response from a Calvinist woman recently in which she explained several things that she wanted to do to meet a particular man’s needs and make his life easier, and what she was prepared to do now in order to show him that she really could do handle the role. I think that she said these things out of sympathy and understanding of that man, and that was very encouraging.
But I think that kind of seriousness about taking of someone else as they really are, self-sacrificially, is rare. And it makes me wonder what people think that marriage is when they get into the church and make vows that, ostensibly, will require self-sacrifice. What do women think that marriage is? What is the goal of it? What makes a marriage successful? Why do women think that men marry? What do men get out of marriage? What are the woman’s responsibilities to the man in a marriage? I think these are questions that men should ask women. And the should not be satisfied with glib answers. Men should demand that books be read, that essays be written, that skills be developed, and that the woman’s life experiences show that she has understood what will be expected from her and why.
I think that it’s a good idea for men to try to get married, but they should be careful to make sure that the woman they choose is sensitive to their needs, just as men ought to be sensitive to the needs of women.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set)
How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/ZmqTcHu
Why It Is A Mistake To Say That All Religions Are The Same
Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Al Serrato
Every year in America, thousands of crimes occur in which there are no witnesses and very little evidence. Sometimes, the perpetrator leaves behind a fingerprint impression – a latent print -somewhere at the crime scene. In the past, these prints possessed little value in identifying the offender; before a comparison could be conducted, the police would have to already have a known suspect.
Today, law enforcement officers have access to much better technology, in the form of AFIS – the Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Maintained by the FBI, it houses the data for millions of fingerprint impressions, allowing an unknown latent print to be compared to millions of known offenders. In a matter of minutes, the AFIS computer can spit out the top twenty possible matches to the unknown latent print. But this is only the beginning of the analysis because, with only one latent print at the scene, there is but one actual source for the print. A trained analyst must then spend the time examining in fine detail the patterns of each suspect – the whorls and arches and loops, the ridges and furrows – to determine whether an exact match can be made. The top twenty possible matches have much in common, but on further examination, differences will emerge in the ridge pattern and detail until the one actual source can be identified.
So, what does this have to do with the field of apologetics? Just this: living as we are in very pluralistic times, we often encounter people who believe that all religions are basically the same. Examining them superficially, they will see that religions share a number of features; for example, most teach the utility of treating others with respect, of being kind, of helping the poor. So, while acknowledging some differences in doctrines, people who hold this view believe they have arrived at a great truth: there is no one right religion, just people who mistakenly, and sometimes dangerously, think that they have the corner on truth. This leaves them feeling settled, for the moment, as they conclude that no further inquiry is required. Just be kind to others and follow your heart and all will be well. But on closer examination, all they have really done is stopped searching for the truth, for the “source” of the life that has been given to them and the universe that surrounds them.
Like fingerprints, religions can appear on the surface to be identical, or nearly so, when in fact they are not. And to determine where and how they differ requires a rigorous and close inspection. This of course is crucial in a fingerprint analysis because we know that for one print, there can only be one source. No analyst would stop when she narrowed the search to three possible sources because common sense and reason dictate that two of the three – or perhaps all three – must also be excludable on further inquiry. It is the nature of the thing examined.
So too with the knowledge of God. The major world religions make mutually exclusive truth claims about the nature and attributes of God. Do we live and die once, and then face judgment, as Christianity teaches? Or do we undergo a continuous cycle of life, death, and reincarnation? Is there one God consisting of three persons, or are there instead of a single god or a multitude of deities? For one religion to be true, the others cannot be.
It is logically possible, of course, that all religions are false. It is not possible, by contrast, for religions holding contrary positions to all be true. Either Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and thereby provides salvation to a fallen world, as Christians claim, or he is not. He cannot be both savior and mere sage at the same time.
Critical and careful analysis of a latent fingerprint can lead to the discovery of the truth as to who left it behind. Making the effort is critical to the pursuit of justice, the importance of which we all intuitively recognize.
But critical and careful analysis can also lead to knowledge of the one God who brought us into existence. When we fail to investigate this question because we mistakenly believe that we already know all we need to know – that is, when we allow ourselves to be misled to believe that all religions are pretty much the same – we may not intuitively realize just how much we are giving up.
After all, what comes next – what awaits each of us at the end of our days here on Earth – is without a doubt the most important question that we must confront. And the sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will find that good and satisfying answers await.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek: http://bit.ly/2zm2VLF
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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 continues to work. 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.
Hidden Themes in the Bible with Dr. Chip Bennett
PodcastHave you ever had an “ah-ha” moment reading a Bible passage that you’ve read many times before? Have you ever noticed a pattern or a theme in the Bible that you didn’t see until someone showed it to you? Is the Bible a plain, one-dimensional text or a much richer revelation— a tapestry woven together by a Divine Mind?
Dr. Chip Bennett, Pastor of Grace Community Church in Sarasota, Florida, joins Frank to reveal some of the amazing hidden themes of the Bible. We say “hidden” because most people today don’t know about them. But the early church fathers, taking cues from Jesus and Paul, discovered that the scriptures are an integrated tapestry that has common themes spread throughout. Chip and Frank discuss themes related to the third day, the Bride, the Serpent, the calming of the sea, and others. Not only will you look at the Bible differently, but you’ll also see another reason why the Bible— written by about 40 authors over 1,500 years— must have a Divine Mind behind it. Truly fascinating!
If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.
Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
Una celebridad cristiana versus un psicópata
EspañolBy Bob Perry
If you were looking to follow a Christian apologist you could trust completely, would you choose someone who is a world-famous figure because of his unparalleled ability to articulate the gospel? Or would you go with a diagnosed and confessed psychopath? The best choice is not as obvious as it might seem at first glance. In this case, I would choose the psychopath. And I would say that I am going with the recommendation of the… psychopath. But if this sounds strange to you, read on.
A Christian celebrity
Last month we learned that world-famous apologist Ravi Zacharias was leading a double life. This was admitted by the ministry he founded, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). On the one hand, Ravi was an extraordinary expositor of the gospel. A great thinker. Who defended the faith with clarity and with the experience provided by a rich cultural background. He truly ticked all the boxes. A man who could deal with the most aggressive skeptic with humility, grace, and truth. He was a model apologist. The kind of person every defender of Christianity longs to emulate. At least outwardly.
Behind closed doors, it turned out that Ravi was a degenerate. An abuser of women. His creepy sexual proclivities have been exposed for the world to see. Ravi’s post-mortem downfall is sad. But it is also proof that the prophet Jeremiah was right when he wrote (Jeremiah 17:9) that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and beyond remedy; who can understand it? ”
The psychopath
Although not as popular as Ravi Zachary, David Wood is also an extraordinary communicator. Known for being a reference on the subject of Islam. But David Wood is much more than that. Wood has a PhD in Philosophy of Religion, with a major in “the problem of evil.” He is an expert on this subject as well – mainly because he has lived his entire life as a psychopath. This is not my personal opinion, but a clinical diagnosis. If you wish, you can listen to his testimony here . The thirty-four minutes you spend listening to him will leave you speechless.
https://youtu.be/DakEcY7Z5GU
David Wood feels no emotion when his pets die, or even when his friends die. He admits to the difficulties he experiences as a husband and father. In his own words, he is a “mess of an individual.” He goes into more detail about why he says this, here (starting at minute 30:30).
Wood attempted to kill his father by beating him with a hammer. As a result, he served a prison sentence. It was there that he met Randy, a fellow inmate and Christian who challenged him to answer some questions—and to reflect on the implications of his self-proclaimed atheism. Wood idolized reason and rationality. But Randy forced him to reason about the existence of objective morality, and the Source of it. His story is a powerful example of why the search for truth should be our primary goal. And a reminder that the Truth is found in Jesus of Nazareth—in Him alone.
Reaction to Ravi
The Ravi Zacarias case has received a lot of press. Some of it comes from Ravi’s supporters who deny the allegations against him. People in this camp tend to believe that multiple women, from all over the world, all interviewed privately, have miraculously arrived at identical descriptions of Ravi’s methods and tastes. To continue to believe that is simply delusional.
Then there are the critics of Christianity who are weaponizing Ravi’s story. Turning it into the latest version of the false argument that hypocritical Christians make Christianity impossible to believe. It’s ridiculous. As David Wood puts it: “If you tell me that 2 + 2 = 4 and then punch me in the mouth, that shouldn’t make me doubt that 2 + 2 = 4. And if you tell me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then buy me a new car, that shouldn’t make me believe that 2 + 2 = 5.”
The truth Ravi communicated is still the truth, even if it came from the mouth of a diabolical sexual predator.
These are the extremes. On the other hand, the most reasonable comments have come from those who have given wise counsel about personal and professional accountability. No one who claims to be a minister of the gospel can feel empowered to demand unchecked freedom, as Ravi Zechariah did. And no ministerial leadership team should have allowed him to receive it. Both Ravi and RZIM are responsible for the consequences. The heart referred to in Jeremiah 17:9 lives in all of us. Even those who are considered Christian “celebrities.”
Contrasting characters
Pride is a powerful drug. It allowed Ravi Zacharias to rationalize his perversions. And he used the reach of his global ministry as a justification to cover them up. Because indeed, millions of people would be “disappointed” if the women he abused told the world what he was doing. So this Christian celebrity dug himself deeper and deeper into his own sewer and never admitted that he was drowning. No apologies. No remorse.
On the other hand, the psychopath’s callous rationality led him to recognize his own vulnerability to the trap of pride. In this case, at least, he is the one we can trust. But in his wisdom, he knows better than to encourage us to trust him. Instead, his message is a word of warning: Put your trust in no man .
The immutable truth
Celebrity status has never been a measure of moral virtue. Ravi Zacharias is certainly not the first Christian celebrity to prove this point. And he won’t be the last.
Nor does being a sinner deny anyone the ability to know and live the truth… even if he or she is a psychopath.
The lesson for all of us here is that the truth, goodness, and beauty of Christianity does not reside in any human being. It rests only on the objective reality that is its Source—the character of God Himself. Men will disappoint you. But Truth does not change. And it never will.
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer for Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and a Master of Science degree in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five adult children.
Original source of the blog: https://cutt.ly/qnSxsek
Translated by Daniela Checa Delgado
Edited by Amber Porta
An Evaluation of “Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking”
Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Elliott Crozat
Introduction
Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking is an engaging article on an issue often confined to academic journals.[1] I am grateful for the report, mainly because of Nobis’ and Dudley’s emphasis on personhood and because I agree with them on two significant points. First, our society needs a careful and respectful examination of challenging topics rather than sloganeering and ad hominem. As Schopenhauer put it, “one wants reasons and not empty phrases or abuse.”[2] Second, at the popular level, folks on both sides of the debate have largely ignored the relevance of moral reasoning.
Four-Fold Evaluation
Notwithstanding my gratitude, the article has weaknesses. What follows is a brief evaluation of the authors’ argument, not an attempt to defend the pro-life position.
Firstly, the tone strikes me as too quick and sure. I will return to this point, but for now, I note that generally, philosophers are less sure about solutions to philosophical problems than the authors seem to be about their position on abortion. However, I grant that a tone of crisp certainty is more acceptable in popular contexts than in academia.
Secondly, the article begins in a questionable manner: “Abortion rights are under attack… The Supreme Court now has a majority of justices who identify as “pro-life,” and will surely be more receptive to these attacks on abortion rights than previous courts have been.” Note that the authors are not clear about whether they are referring to moral or legal rights. Either way, a problem arises. If the former, they are begging the question at the start since it is debatable whether persons have the moral right to perform an abortion. If the latter, then “attack” is a question-begging epithet. After all, if a legal right is morally unacceptable, it is arguably permissible to repeal that right. Labeling such efforts with the emotionally-laden “attack” presupposes that the legal right in question is ethically acceptable.
Thirdly, the authors provide two analogies to argue that abortion is morally permissible. In each, they presuppose the like-cases principle: like cases should be treated alike unless there is a morally relevant reason to treat them differently. Good start: this is a venerable moral principle going back at least to Aristotle. Nevertheless, each analogy fails because of at least one morally significant difference.
The first comparison is between abortion and organ donation. This comparison fails in two crucial respects: (i) in typical cases of organ donation, the donor consents to undergo the process, and (ii) the process occurs after the donor is brain-dead. It hardly needs to be stated that in typical cases of abortion, the fetus does not consent and is not brain-dead.
The second analogy concerns abortion and the treatment of anencephalic infants. Here, the authors miss the difference between (a) actively killing and (b) passively allowing to die. This distinction is pivotal in the euthanasia debate and proves similarly important here. Abortion is the active killing of a fetus that would otherwise naturally continue to live and develop. However, in cases of anencephalic infants such as those noted by the authors, the infant is allowed to die, supported by palliative care.
Given these analogies, the authors construct something like the following argument:
The argument is an interesting application of the like-cases principle. However, since the analogies fail, the authors’ analogical reasoning is unconvincing.
Fourthly, the authors claim that fetuses during the first 12 weeks are not conscious. Perhaps they are correct, but they cannot be objectively certain. As many philosophers of mind have indicated, consciousness is a hard problem. A good way to discover if a being is conscious is to determine if it has qualia (i.e., subjective states of experience). One cannot accomplish this task with a brain scan. Hence, a reasonable concern arises that we cannot achieve certainty concerning whether a fetus has qualia. And since we lack such certainty, we should act with the utmost caution, given the moral seriousness of taking human life. The authors do not address this point.[3] Instead, they present what might strike the reader as an unjustified sense of certainty about the moral permissibility of killing fetuses during the first 12 weeks.
Moreover, the authors write that fetuses “lack consciousness-enabling brains.” But they are not lucid about what “consciousness-enabling brain” means, leaving the reader to ponder the matter. Now, there is evidence that the senses of taste and touch begin to develop around Week 8. According to Ventura and Worobey, the olfactory and gustatory systems also start to form during this period. These systems and their connections to the brain enable the fetus to develop tastes and preferences for specific flavors.[4] Touch, taste, and smell are sensations, which are states of consciousness. Preferences and other desires are also conscious states. Thus, the physical resources which support consciousness begin to develop before Week 12. Do these mechanisms enable any degree of consciousness during this period? I suggest that we do not know the answer to this question and that our ignorance indicates that we should tread carefully.
Furthermore, one is within one’s epistemic rights to doubt the authors’ claim that the present bearing of consciousness is necessary to possess the moral right to life. For example, the adult who temporarily loses consciousness because of, say, dehydration does not thereby lose this right. Instead, one might agree with Marquis that the primary concern at hand is that the fetus has a future like ours.[5] In other words, the human fetus, child, and adult share a comparable future, namely, one in which a conscious agent naturally possesses intrinsically valuable experiences. It is morally wrong to deprive a child or an adult of future experiences. Given the like-cases principle, abortion is morally wrong because it deprives the fetus of such experiences.
Conclusion
There are other concerns with the article, such as an apparent mishandling of important points about interests. But I want to end amicably. Nobis and Dudley close by stating that one should not wait to engage in moral philosophy until forced to because of a rescinded legal privilege. I wholly agree.
[1] Salon published the article on April 11, 2021. See https://www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/
[2] “On Suicide,” in Essays and Aphorisms, tr. R. J. Hollingdale, (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 78.
[3] They need not agree with it. But they should recognize it.
[4] “Early Influences on the Development of Food Preferences,” in Current Biology, Volume 23, Issue 9, May 2013. Moreover, Andreas Keller argues that olfaction is the paradigm sensation. See Philosophy of Olfactory Perception, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
[5] See “Why Abortion is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy 86, 4 (April 1989): 183–202.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality (mp4 download), (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek
Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Elliott R. Crozat (Ph.D., M.A.) is a full-time professor of philosophy and the humanities at Purdue University Global. His philosophical interests include metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of religion, ethics, and the meaning of life. He lives in Sarasota, FL.
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/FnA9awB