Tag Archive for: apologetics

What Children Show Us About Human Nature

Most non-believers will tell you that man is basically “good.” When he acts against that basic goodness, it’s the result of disease, such as alcoholism, drug addiction, or some form of mental illness. These, in turn, stem from a failure of society to reach out and provide the right kind of assistance and services. If only we as a society could do more, spend more, provide more, we could eventually create the kind of utopia that “good” people populate.

 

Christianity, by contrast, teaches a much different worldview. Long ago, the first man and woman exercised their free will to rebel against God, and in so doing created a rift between man and God that continues to this day. Though man has a certain inherent goodness, because he bears the image of God, he is at present broken, corrupted, and fallen, and he manifests that fallen nature in a way that we see quite starkly. Christians have a name for this manifestation – sin. It afflicts and motivates all of us, and no one can escape its pull. Not without divine help, anyway.

Worldviews Shape Our Response to the Gospel

These contrasting worldviews cannot both be correct. And depending on which view you accept, your response to the good news of the Gospel will be different. “Good” people who simply need more education and more refinement don’t need a Savior; they can do just fine on their own, and with a little help from society. But fallen and corrupted people, even well-intentioned ones, are not going to be able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Their nature, constantly at war with the good that is within them, needs to be recast – remade in the image of the God who made them and left them here.

Is there a way to “prove” which view is correct? How can we reliably determine what man is like in his natural state? First, we need to get our minds around what we mean by terms like “good” or “evil.” I would suggest a simple definition: what we recognize as “good” in other people is the product of an intentional effort at selflessness. Whether it’s sacrificial love, working for charity or simply a random act of kindness – what we experience as “good” is an act directed to the benefit of the other. By contrast, what we see as evil is an act directed at satisfying within oneself a base or selfish end. The quests for power, for recognition, for material wealth, for dominance – all these things drive people to ignore the harm inflicted as they climb over those who stand in their way.

But, What About the Babies?!

Now, with this basic concept in mind, what can we see from examining man in his most primitive state? I don’t mean primitive as in caveman, but as in newborn. Spend even a little time with infants and toddlers, and you’ll see some basic features emerge. Each views himself as the center of the universe and expects his parents and the other kids around him to treat him accordingly. With each passing month, the willfulness of the child’s behavior becomes increasingly apparent: from every fiber of his being, he is shouting, “I want things my way!” Whether it’s food or drink, when and how he wants it, his mother’s attention, or his playmate’s toys, a developing child’s “me-focus” is readily on display. And if his will is thwarted, there is no resort to reason – a temper tantrum is the predictable result.

Now, some might object that children are innocent and cannot be described as bad or broken, or worse yet, evil. They might point out that children are free from the biases and prejudices that sour many adult relationships. But this objection misses my point. I would not describe children as evil either, because evil implies a level of awareness of the harm one is doing, and a small child does not yet appreciate the consequences of his behavior. But the child’s behavior is reflective of the way his mind operates, and unless a parent applies discipline and training to bend the will to a proper orientation, a spoiled, self-centered adolescent will emerge.

Evil Comes Naturally

Consider: no parents ever have to train their child to give up his positive and sunny disposition and be more critical of others; they don’t need to punish their children for sharing too much and instead teach them to rip their toys out of the hands of their playmates; they don’t need to insist that a child stop thinking so much about what he can do for his parents – “Can’t I wash the dishes or sweep the deck? I really don’t have anything else to do?” No, for every child, the process of “civilizing” is a process of moving from a me-centered selfishness to an other-centered effort to get along.

Children don’t have the insight yet to seek to change their ways, to live more cooperatively and altruistically. Their parents’ job is to teach them – to help them move from their inherent fallenness to a state which is not quite natural to us, a state in which we are intentional about trying to do good. The non-believer can also do good. But by rejecting God as the source of true goodness, he remains in defiance to God. He refuses to see his need for a Savior to finish the job of making him good. He refuses to bend his will to God. It is no coincidence that the Bible speaks of becoming a “slave” to Christ. For in the end, it is only by bending to Him – by dying to ourselves as we look outward to others in order to better serve Him – that we can eventually find the solution to our problem.

Believing that we are basically good flies in the face of the reality of what we truly are. It stands in the way of our crying out for the Savior who alone has the power to restore us. Observing children in their natural condition can help give us a better picture of ours.

This is one of the few lessons that we should allow our children to teach us.

Recommended Resources:

If God, Why Evil? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

Why Doesn’t God Intervene More? (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek

Why does God allow Bad Things to Happen to Good People? (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek 

Relief From the Worst Pain You’ll Ever Experience (DVD) (MP3) (Mp4 Download) by Gary Habermas 

 

Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.

/by

Secular Professor Tactics 101

As a parent or student it will help you to know that in many cases your secular professors have a strategy. They have a goal. A strategy is the big-picture plan to win or achieve that goal. Tactics are the step-by-step methods used to carry it out. I’ve told you before that you can see their goal by how they live their own lives. But now let’s look at their classroom tactics.

 

If you’re a parent or a prospective student, you need to understand the tactics of the secular professor. For many of them, “winning” means leading students to adopt a radical leftist ideology—either by outright agreement or by slow, subtle influence. Agreement isn’t always demanded immediately. Sometimes, all they want is your gradual surrender of confidence in anything else.  The big win, however, is final deconversion from Christianity and acceptance of something like the LGBTQ+ “safe zone” philosophy pushed at ASU.

Undermining Christianity: The Real Strategy

The strategy of many secular professors is simple: undermine Christianity. Why? Because Christianity remains the major roadblock to their radical leftist ideology.  Without that, their goal is in sight.

If you had to guess a student’s religion, statistically, you’d guess Christian and be right more often than not. Christianity remains the default framework for morality, identity, and truth for many students, even if only in fragments.  Christian teaching is the main roadblock to the Marxism at the core of the radical left.

And that’s a problem—for them.

The teachings of Christianity are fundamentally incompatible with the radical left’s view of sex, gender, truth, power, and the good life. So, it’s not just about “dialogue” or “working together.” Before they can win a student to their worldview, they must first destabilize the student’s confidence in Christianity. Undermine the foundation, and the rest of the structure will fall. That’s the strategy. Their tactics follow.

How the Strategy Is Carried Out: Tactics You Should Know

This strategy to undermine Christianity is carried out through many identifiable tactics. For parents and students, it’s worth learning these—not only to recognize what’s happening, but also to see how poorly equipped many of these professors are for the intellectual life they claim to lead. Scripture puts it plainly: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). What we’re witnessing in many classrooms today is a real-time application of that verse. Let’s examine a few of their most common tactics. We’ll begin with three—but the list, sadly, is always growing.

Tactic #1: Undermine the Word of God

The first and most foundational tactic is to undermine the authority of Scripture. This can take the form of a direct assault—mocking the Bible as outdated, oppressive, or absurd—or a more subtle approach: cherry-picking verses to support radical leftist ideology.

For example, I have a colleague—openly anti-Christian—who claims that Matthew 25:40 (“Whatever you did for the least of these, you did for me”) is the best verse in the Bible. Why? Because she believes it proves her progressive social philosophy. On her reading, all you have to do is advocate for so-called sexual minorities, and you’re doing exactly what Jesus said. No need for sound doctrine. No need to understand the whole Bible. Just grab a single verse and weaponize it.  Incidentally, it is worth noting that in this specific verse, Jesus is speaking about believers.

But that’s only half the tactic. The next step is to accuse actual Christians of not living up to the verse. She’ll claim that conservative Christians don’t care for the poor or marginalized—never mind the fact (which students rarely hear) that conservative Christians out-give atheist professors by a staggering margin when it comes to charity, adoption, missions, disaster relief, and practical acts of compassion.

Still, students don’t know that. So the professor paints a picture: the Bible is on her side, and Christians are hypocrites who don’t live up to it.

You’ll notice she never mentions John 6, where Jesus rebukes the crowd for following Him only to get bread, rather than the Bread of Life. She’s not interested in the full counsel of God—only the verses that can be twisted to serve her ideological agenda.

There are other versions of this tactic. One common move is to deny that the Bible even teaches that homosexuality is a sin. “That’s just in Leviticus,” they’ll say, “and no Christian keeps that anymore.”

I call this the “Did God really say?” tactic. Just like the serpent in the garden, the secular professor begins by sowing doubt: Did God really say that?

Did He really say that homosexuality is a sin?
Did He really define male and female?
Did He really establish the moral order we find in Scripture?

If they can get the student to doubt the clarity, authority, or consistency of God’s Word, they’ve won the first battle.

Tactic #2: Vilify Christianity

The second tactic is to vilify Christianity—to paint it not as the source of civilization’s greatest moral and social advances, but as the root of all historical evil. This is straight out of the classical Marxist playbook, so anyone familiar with the last 150 years of ideology should see it coming a mile away.

Unfortunately, most parents assume we’ve moved past this kind of propaganda. And most students, born long after the fall of the USSR, have never heard a rebuttal. So here’s what they’ll be told:

Christianity invented slavery.
Christianity promoted poverty.
Christians fought to keep people oppressed.

Of course, if you dig long enough, you can always find someone—somewhere—who called themselves a Christian and said something foolish or sinful. That’s not hard. But that’s not the [larger] truth. The truth is this: Christianity gave birth to orphanages, hospitals, and universities. It introduced the rule of law, the dignity of the individual, and the foundation for economic growth and human rights. Christianity gave entire nations the hope of a better future in this life—and the next.

You won’t hear that in most classrooms. Instead, students will be told that Christianity supported slavery. But the historical reality is that slavery was universal in the ancient world. Christianity challenged and ultimately abolished it in Christianized nations—while it still exists today in non-Christian societies.

Why do professors hide this? Because the tactic is designed to make students (specifically white male Christian students) ashamed of their own heritage, their faith, and their families. That shame softens them. Once a student is ashamed of Christianity, they can be more easily reprogrammed and brainwashed. The Marxists knew this. And today’s professors are still using the same tactic with unnerving skill.

Tactic #3: Teach That It Doesn’t Matter Either Way

This tactic is all about misdirection. Unlike the first two, which confront Christianity directly, this one tries to bypass it entirely. The professor simply avoids mentioning the Bible at all. Why? Because attacking it outright might prompt a student to open it—and then the risk is that the student might actually be convinced by its truth. So, instead, the tactic is silence.

The professor communicates—both directly and indirectly—that the student can live a good, meaningful, moral life without ever knowing what the Bible says. If Scripture does come up, it’s brushed aside with a casual, dismissive remark: “Oh, the Bible? Sure, there are a few good things in there—for people who like that sort of thing.”

The message is clear: the Bible is irrelevant.
Not dangerous. Not sacred. Just… beside the point.
Outdated. Unnecessary. Background noise.

This is misdirection at its finest—because it leaves the student disarmed. There’s no battle to fight if the battlefield itself is ignored. The professor shifts the student’s focus to career, activism, self-expression—anything but divine truth. And over time, the student begins to believe the lie that neutrality is possible, and that the big questions of life—truth, meaning, morality, destiny—can be answered without reference to God. But that is not neutrality. That’s secularism in disguise.

Spot the Tactic: A Challenge for Students

Recognizing these tactics is the first step to seeing how certain professors use their class time—not to educate—but to advance a strategy of deconverting Christian students. In fact, you might even turn it into a bit of a game. Challenge your friends:

  • Who can spot the most tactics in a single class session?
  • Whose course schedule has the most ideologically driven professors?
  • Who can most clearly connect the tactics to the broader strategy?

Keep score. Compare notes. And when you’re ready, send me your tallies—I’ll make sure they’re seen by those with oversight at the university. Because let’s be clear: taxpayers aren’t funding this nonsense.[1] And it certainly doesn’t qualify as “education.”

References:

[1] [Editor’s note: At least, taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund any anti-religious bigotry or anti-Christian indoctrination or deconversion tactics.]

Recommended Resources:

Intellectual Predators: How Professors Prey on Christian Students (DVD) (mp3) (mp4 Download) 

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

 

​​Dr. Owen Anderson is a Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Arizona State University, a pastor, and a certified jiu-jitsu instructor. He emphasizes the Christian belief in God, human sin, and redemption through Christ, and he explores these themes in his philosophical commentary on the Book of Job. His recent research addresses issues such as DEIB, antiracism, and academic freedom in secular universities, critiquing the influence of thinkers like Rousseau, Marx, and Freud. Dr. Anderson actively shares his insights through articles, books, online classes, and his Substack.

/by

A Wolf in Women’s Clothing: The One Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Matthew 7:15 (ESV)

 

The bathroom debate has resurrected some very old questions about women’s rights.[1] Once upon a time, women fought for separate bathrooms from men. The reasons were obvious. Privacy, modesty, prudence, and the unfortunate fact that men have a worse record for physical and sexual violence. It’s not in women’s best interests to get stuck in a bathroom with a strange man, if she can help it. But in recent years, the common-sense solution of “separate bathrooms” has come under fire. The Trump administration has introduced a new level of pushback, but the bathroom debate is still far from settled. I have to wonder, however, if we could let the air out of this inflated debate by asking one simple question.

The Question Trans-Activists Can’t Answer

If we ask the right question, we can show that trans-activists aren’t very serious in proposing trans-inclusive bathrooms. Of course, trans-activists probably think they’re serious. We don’t have to question their intentions here either. Good intentions can’t redeem bad policy anyway. So, for the sake of argument, we can grant good intentions – compassion for marginalized people, commitment to justice, loving your neighbor, human rights, etc. But when activists push for trans-inclusive bathrooms they have to answer this important question. Otherwise, they haven’t really thought through the issue. So  they aren’t very serious. That question is simply this:

How do you police against the predators?

When I say “predators” I’m not talking about all LGBTQ folks or “trans-women” generally. I’m talking about would-be sex criminals: the voyeurs, rapists, pedophiles, criminal opportunists, and even “autogynephilic” men (males who derive sexual arousal from imagining themselves as women). Predators really exist. We can expect some predators to trespass into women’s restrooms as long as naïve policy allows them to. Predators are liable to spawn as long as the systems in place give mischievous males unfettered access to potential victims. In this way, predators are a reliable “test case” for progressive bathroom policies.

Trans vs. Trans-Acting?

We cannot rationally assume that every man who would use a women’s bathroom is a “trans-woman” (biological male who ‘identifies’ as female). Sure, he might be a classic transgender case who poses no real threat to women. But, he could instead be a cross-dresser who likes to sneak a peek at the ladies. He could be a flasher or a sexual harasser he gets a kick out of exposing himself or behaving rudely with women in the restroom. He could be a pedophile, taking mental pics of naked girls, to fantasize about them later. Or he could be a rapist who’d gladly wear a dress if it means open access to women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. Or he could be a clinically sick teen boy using performative gender to corner his “girl crush”, alone, so  she can’t reject him if she tried. History, criminal psychology, and a healthy dose of realism, attest that these are all live possibilities as long as biological males are legally allowed in women’s restrooms.

Maintaining separate bathrooms has, traditionally, been the common-sense solution for reducing those threats. No solution is 100% perfect here. But, realistically, keeping biological males out of women’s restrooms and locker rooms is a good start for policing against perverts and predators. Dropping that wall of separation means reducing our practical ability to protect women from predators. Bear in mind, we still have active laws against flashers, sexual harassers, and peeping toms. But, if it’s legal to do all of that now, as long as you “trans-act”, then our bathroom policies have given perverts and predators an escape clause in our legal code.

Sheep, Goats and Wolves

It would be nice if every “trans-woman” was just an innocent, lost sheep. Maybe they just need a little care, understanding, and a little guidance, to bring them into the fold. Then God could redeem their own unique gender-expression and sexual identity however He sees fit. Perhaps if the church did a better job caring for “widows and orphans,” i.e., fatherlessness, we wouldn’t have as much transgenderism going around (James 1:27; Exod. 22:22; 1 Tim. 5:5). Undoubtedly, there are some lost sheep out there that fit this profile.

The debate over trans-inclusive bathrooms would be a lot simpler if we were only dealing with the proverbial lost sheep. But, realistically, our policies must also account for goats (fakes and frauds). And we especially need to watch out for the wolves (predators and criminal opportunists). We cannot reasonably assume every “trans-woman” is a “lost sheep.” Instead, we have every reason to expect some of them to be wolves in women’s clothing.

The next time someone offers a policy proposal where trans-women can use the women’s restroom, you can ask them how that policy will police against predators? It’s a fair question. We used to police against them by, first, separating bathrooms according to sex. But, if biological males are now allowed into women’s restrooms, how do we expect to replace that policing power now that the perimeter defenses are down?

Remember the Wisdom of Separate Bathrooms

The ugly answer seems to be that trans-inclusive bathroom policy was never intended for women’s safety, but rather for men’s convenience. Males who identify as female are the target audience here, even if biological women are left in the lurch because of it. When inclusive-bathroom policies unwittingly carry a pack of savvy predators, as stow-aways, then as soon as they’re dropped on women’s restrooms, that’s like airdropping a pack of wolves into the sheep pen. Women deserve better. Moreover, it doesn’t do trans-activists any favors when their own policy is readily hijacked by criminals and predators. We do well to preserve separate bathrooms.

References: 

[1] A “quick fix” solution here is to make only “single-stall” bathrooms. That option can work in some cases, but it’s often impractical for stadiums, locker rooms, health clubs, large businesses, and so forth. The bathroom debate isn’t that easily solved.

Recommended Resources: 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) Book, DVD Set, Mp4 Download by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality (DVD Set), (PowerPoint download), (PowerPoint CD), (MP3 Set) and (DVD mp4 Download Set) 

Does Jesus Trump Your Politics by Dr. Frank Turek (mp4 download and DVD)

Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

Alex O’Connor Misses The Mark On His Distinction Between Types Of Worship

A key argument in Alex O’Connor’s debate with David Wood is the distinction Alex draws (in his first rebuttal) between “proskuneo” (Gk: προσκυνέω) worship and “latreuo” (Gk: λατρεύω) worship.

Both proskuneo worship and latreuo worship are biblical terms used to describe worship or service to God, but they carry different shades of meaning. Proskuneo means to physically bow down, or prostrate oneself in order to show reverence. Latreuo means to serve or honour in a religious or sacrificial sense. In Romans 12:1 for example, Paul tells us to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice as latreuo to God).

The crux of Alex’s argument is that, on these two senses of worship, Jesus never receives latreuo worship in the way that only God does, and there is nothing special about the fact that the worship Jesus does receive is proskuneo; because other mortals also received proskuneo in the Greek Old Testament, or example, Esau from Jacob in Genesis 33, and Joseph from his brothers in Genesis 42.[1]

In his second rebuttal, Alex explains that this distinction argument is supported by James D.G Dunn, who writes:

It is noticeable that in each case the object of the verb [latreuo], the one who is (to be) served/worshipped, is God. Apart from one or two references to false worship (Acts 7:42; Rom 1:25), the reference is always to the cultic service/worship of God (Luke 1:74, 2:37; Acts 7:7, 42; 24:14; 26:7; 27:23; Rom. 1:9; Phil. 3:3; 2 Tim. 1:3; Heb. 8:5; 9:9; 9:14; 10:2 and 12:28, 13:10; Rev. 7:15; and 22:3). In no case in the New Testament is there talk of offering cultic worship [latreuo/λατρεύω] to Jesus.[2]

And so, Alex’s argument is that Jesus only receives the proskuneo kind of “worship” and not latreuo kind. This is a problem because proskuneo worship doesn’t determine whether Jesus thought of himself as God or whether he claimed to be God.

Two disclaimers

What Alex doesn’t mention in the debate is what Dunn writes in the same section: “more typically in the New Testament, [proskuneo] is used of the worship (prostration) due to God, and to God alone.”[3]

So at least according to Dunn, proskuneo as directed towards Jesus in the New Testament carries weight in determining whether Jesus thought of himself as God or whether he claimed to be God.

Further, it might be helpful to note that Dunn lists other Greek words for worship or reverence in the New Testament, which might be applied to either God alone, or to God as well as Jesus of Nazareth.[4] Proskuneo and Latreuo are not the only ones.

Two points in response to Alex

There are two points of response which show that Alex’s argument about the distinction between proskuneo and latreuo is underwhelming.

  1. It shouldn’t surprise us that Jesus of Nazareth received proskuneo (and not latreuo), because he was in physical form. Latreuo worship is sacrificially offered to the non-physical God, but Jesus of Nazareth was physically God-incarnate (as David argued in this debate!). With Jesus standing right before them, of course the disciples offered proskuneo When I finally see the God-man face-to-face one day, I already know that I’m going to fall before him in proskuneo worship.
  2. You’ve got to read in context. As Dunn states, proskuneo worship in the New Testament is typically “due to God, and to God alone.”[5] In fact, in Rev. 22:8, an angel rejects proskuneo worship from John and tells him to offer it to God. A simple, face-value reading of the New Testament, and even of the gospels alone, reveals that the authors thought that Jesus was God. Proskuneo worship of Jesus doesn’t detract from this, rather, it adds to it. Once again, as Dunn says, proskuneo is typically given to God alone in the New Testament (see Rev. 22:9; also see in the gospels in John 4:23-24 and Matt. 4:10/Luke 4:8). So, as Jesus of Nazareth receives proskuneo worship, the reader is drawn to see his ontology as more-than-human.

Review Alex O’Connor’s Argument

In summary, Alex’s leveraging of James Dunn’s argument has three faults. First, Alex cherry-picks from Dunn for his own purposes, and doesn’t expound on what Dunn says about proskuneo.

Second, it is of absolutely no surprise that the physical God-man receives proskuneo, because falling on your knees before Jesus is an appropriate act of worship.

Thirdly, the New Testament has a particular reverence for the word proskuneo, even if the Old Testament applies it more loosely. And so Jesus receiving the proskuneo of worship does not detract from his ontological divine nature, but rather points to it.

Let’s continue to pray that Alex would see Jesus for who he reality is. Pray that Alex would put Jesus in his rightful place.

References: 

[1] [Editor’s note: The Greek Old Testament is known as the Septuagint or LXX for short.]

[2] James D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 13.

[3] Ibid., 10.

[4] These additional words are Sebomai/σέβομαι and Epikaleo/ἐπικαλέω. See Dunn, 15-17.

[5] See footnote 2.

Recommended Resources: 

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Another Gospel? by Alisa Childers (book)

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way? (mp4 Download) by Frank Turek

 

Sean Redfearn is a former Community Youth Worker who now works for Christian Concern in Central London, UK. He completed an MA in Religion at King’s College London, is in the process of completing the MA Philosophy program at Southern Evangelical Seminary, and is a 2022 CrossExamined Instructor Academy graduate. Passionate about Jesus, he is grateful for the impact that apologetics has had on his faith.

/by

The Road to the Perfect God

Human beings have wondered about God for millennia. The Bible explains this by saying that God “set eternity in the human heart.”[1] How can, limited, finite human beings wonder about the supreme being? Some say that we are not alone in this quest and that God has revealed himself to us. That he has bridged the infinite chasm between creature and creator so that finite creatures can know him. Other say that God, if he exists at all, is too hidden and has not done a good job in making his existence evident.

My contention here is that, not only is God not hidden, but there is evidence for his existence that we cannot dismiss because it is right “in front” of us, every moment, every second, every day and in every aspect of our lives.[2]

The Orchestra of Existence

When attempting such a massive undertaking (wondering about God), let us start with ourselves: humanity. This is not our starting point because of some (empty) humanism that says that humans are the most valuable beings or the center of the universe. We are just starting with humans because it is our natural starting point since we are, after all, humans.

There are many things that we know about ourselves as individuals and as humankind. The first is that we exist. We also know, however, that we do not need to exist. Our existence is a gift, if not just an accident.[3] Either way, it was possible that we did not exist. In fact, humans who have not yet been conceived do not exist yet. This is true of us as individuals but is also true about humankind. Humans did not need to exist and in fact, some people would argue that it would have been better if that was not the case. Human beings are just another species who might disappear from the face of the earth. There is nothing in our humanity or in ourselves that implies that we must exist.

The same is true of pretty much everything around us. It is true of whatever you are using to read this, of whatever building you are in or will get to, whatever clothes you may have, whatever animals there are on the earth. In fact, it is true of the whole earth, of all the stars, galaxies and even of the whole universe. The bottom line is we live in a universe that does not have to exist.

One might ask then, if every existing thing did not have to exist, how does anything exist at all? No matter how many of the finest instruments capable of producing the most beautiful melodies you stack on a stage, no sound will come out of them unless something makes them play. In the same way, if you stack all the things that may exist, you could not get the actual existence of anything unless something makes them be.

The conclusion is that, while most things exist because something outside themselves gave it existence, there is a being who exists by virtue of its own nature; its nature is existence. This is the musician playing the instruments, it is the source of the existence of everything else: God.

The Perfect God

I want to offer some insight into my last conclusion. We normally just use words like “be” and “existence” just to say that something “is there” or that it is real, not imaginary. Saying that God’s nature is existence, however, implies something more than that. In created beings, nature actually limits what a thing can be. For example, the blueprint of a house limits how the house is. It delimits (and limits) where a building block or a column must be in other for a particular house to be the house in the blueprint. In a human, human nature permits rationality but limits us so we cannot fly. The dog nature allows Fido to run but does not allow him to think abstractly.

This is not the case with God. Since God’s nature is just existence itself, it is not limited by anything. Therefore, God is the wholly perfect and supreme being. He possesses all perfections to the highest possible degree. There is no aspect in which He could be more perfect.

Imperfect Reflections of the Perfect God

Since every being owes its being ultimately to God and comes from God, every good aspect of a thing, is an imperfect reflection, of a perfection in God. Taken again, for example, existence (in the regular sense of being real). As we covered at the beginning, humans (and the rest of the universe) do not need to exist, still we do exist. And this is an imperfect reflection of the perfect God in at least to ways.

First, the fact that we exist implies that something other than us made us exist. Our existence is really not an accident, it is a gift. And as we have seen, in order for us to exist, ultimately there must be something that exist necessarily, which is God. Second, just as how the music stops when an orchestra stops playing the instruments, our existence would finish if God were to cease to keep us in existence. It turns out that our existence is not just a one-time gift given at creation, but an ongoing gift that God has not repented of.

This dependent quality of existence is only one example. The same pattern applies to every other good we observe around us. When we see the love of a mother, the strength of a father, the beauty in a sunset, the intelligence in a scientist, justice in a judge, loyalty in a dog, wisdom in a teacher, freedom in a flying bird, grandeur in nature . . . every true, beautiful, and good aspect of anything we see in the world, even in its most amazing expressions, is but an imperfect and finite reflection of the perfect and infinite God.

We may begin by noticing a good quality in a thing in the world.[4] Since that thing, however, is not infinite, the perfection it displays must exist fully in an unlimited being (God), who has it by virtue of his own nature. The quality only belongs fully and naturally to the source, while everything else can only reflect that quality in an imperfect way.

Conclusion

We began our inquiry on our natural starting point: our experience as finite beings. Now, we arrive at the natural stopping point: God, the supreme and wholly perfect being who is the source of all that is. As Paul reminds us, “God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.”[5] We can conclude that God is not hidden from us. Every good, true, and beautiful aspect of the world proclaims the perfect being who created and sustains all of creation.

References: 

[1] Ecclesiastes 3:11, New International Version.

[2] Joseph Owens, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1963).

[3] I mean “accidental” not in a metaphysical sense, but as an event that happens by chance or without an apparent deliberate cause.

[4] Things do not truly have bad qualities. What we often call a “bad quality” is actually a lack or a distortion of some good that should be present according to the thing’s nature. For example, we can think of violence as the absence of proper order or restraint in power that a human being should have. Therefore, even in this sense the same reasoning applies. The absence itself reminds us of the perfection that only God possesses completely without deficiency, distortion, or limit.

[5] Romans 1:20, New International Version.

Recommended Resources: 

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

Diego Fallas earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. During his studies, he became passionate about Christian apologetics. He quickly found himself immersed in the field as he started taking seminary courses in apologetics and became a Reasonable Faith chapter director. Today, he is the Director of Operations for CrossExamined.org, and teaches and speaks in Latin America. Diego is the co-host of the weekly Livestream show Piensalo Bien and is currently completing his M.A. in philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

/by

A Disturbing Trend

,

A disturbing trend is rising. People are calling for Trump’s assass1nation.[1] Political discourse has shifted from divisive and shrill, to radical and violent. Meanwhile, there have been four confirmed attempts on the president’s life, one of them missed by mere inches. This is getting out of hand.

 

Ironically, the same people calling for violence against the elected president think they’re fighting for democracy. Apparently, people can avoid the courts, evade elections, derail due process, and bypass all the checks and balances of this constitutional democratic republic, and somehow they’re still “pro-democracy.” How does that work?

“The same people calling for violence against the elected president think they’re fighting for democracy”

Firebombing Car Dealers . . . Bad.

Now I don’t think Donald Trump is the best or the worst. He’s neither demon nor angel. And he’s definitely not the Messiah. As a Christian conservative, I have mixed feelings about him. But, I pray for him in office, just as I prayed for Biden and Obama before him. I believe in civic engagement, voting your conscience, and so forth. My view on Trump isn’t pollyanna or apocalyptic. I’ll give him credit when he’s right, and critique when he’s wrong. He needs the Constitution and the courts to keep him in-check and level-headed. Every other presidence had needed that same check-and-balance system. So, when I go on Facebook and X, and see people calling for his severed head, it’s a little startling.

I’ve been trying, and failing, to convince anti-Trumpers that regardless of their views on Trump, domestic terrorism is really bad and we shouldn’t support it.[2] You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to recognize that “killing is bad.” But, those same people argue instead that firebombing a car dealership is “pro-democracy,” erecting a guillotine outside a Trump rally is just “good clean fun,” and that we should be cheering for assassination attempts against Trump. Folks, this is not okay.

Of course, radicals are going to do what radicals do. We can expect veiled threats of violence in the wafting smog of hot air from loud-mouth critics, social media incels, and guerilla radio pundits. Till Christ returns, we can expect as much. That’s bad, of course. But, there are loud-mouth fools on the political right, left, and middle. As long as it’s just talk, then we might not need to sound the alarms just yet. As long as they stay on the fringes, they aren’t the political “base” of their party. But the fringe isn’t so “fringe” anymore.

“The fringe isn’t so ‘fringe’ anymore.“

The Fringe is now the Base

The radical edge of the Democrat party is quickly becoming the core of the Democratic party. We’ve seen a lot of this shift in real time, over the last 12 years or so. There’s Occupy Wall Street (2011-2012), BLM (2013). Antifa (2016), George Floyd riots (2020-2021), not to mention the disorienting rise of radical Trans-activism (2016-2023) and the Covid chaos of 2020. And that’s not even counting “old-school” terrorists like Weather Underground, the Black Panthers, and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). To be sure, the right wing have their issues too, and I don’t doubt that – if pushed – radical elements on the right could resort to violence too. Domestic Terrorism and violent extremism is not just a “left-wing” problem, even if that’s where some of the loudest support is right now. The point is the mainstream left is starting to sound and act like domestic terrorists.

The “left” has pulled hard left since at least 2012. The “radical fringe” of progressive radicals, neo-marxist revolutionaries, and anarchists isn’t “fringe” anymore. They’re mainstream.

The Conversation Has Changed

If you’ve been tracking the tone of political discourse in the last few years, you’ve seen a swelling violent undercurrent. Political discourse is losing the humility, sophistication, and mutual respect it once had. People now talk at their political opponents like they’re instructing imbeciles, house-training a puppy, or even rebuking a demon. The conversation has changed, for the worst.

I’ve been monitoring this trend, in part, because of my background in logic and debate. I taught logic and debate at the high school and college level. I’ve organized and participated in several formal debates. I celebrate respectful, intelligent, civil discourse. I honestly don’t trust people who agree with me on everything, because that means someone’s lying. We all have disagreements. That’s normal and healthy. And we can’t mature very well, socially, unless we learn how to respectfully engage over contentious topics and dialogue through our disagreements. That’s a big part of adulting.

For all the risks and drawbacks that come with that aspect of free speech, it’s critically important that we have the freedom to disagree or we lose one of the most basic tools for warding off tyranny and correcting injustice. Not to mention, as a Christian, free speech means people like me have the freedom to confess and share our faith with others, preaching, teaching, and shining God’s light into a dark and dying world.

In recent years, however, civil dialogue has been drowning in the undertow of angry tirades, ignorant screeds, paid propaganda, and deliberate misinformation. And with the rhetorical swell, there’s been a rise in violence. We aren’t just dealing with a “few outliers” anymore, or the occasional random crazy person. Trump has already survived a near-miss assassination attempt, so we know it’s not just idle threats either. Mainline and establishment lefists are calling for political violence (i.e., literal domestic terrorism).

Rationalized Violence

People don’t just support violence because they like being the bad guy. That’s not how sympathy for the devil works. Instead, people want to feel like truth, goodness, and justice is on their side. So, they argue that this violent act is a necessary evil for the sake of some greater good. That necessary evil might not seem palatable at first. But with a little desensitization, ordinary men can become killers; peaceful pedestrians can be made to cheer for crimes against humanity.[3] That desensitization can be as simple as media streams constantly comparing Trump to “Hitler,” calling him a “Fascist,” “Dictator,” and “Autocrat.” And social media algorithms can populate our news feed with alarmist click-bait and conspiracy theories casting Donald Trump as the devil incarnate. The perspective shift can be so gradual you don’t even notice your own moral drift. Domestic Terrorists start looking like “Freedom Fighters.” Soon you’re imagining how the world would be better off without him.

At that point, it’s easy to rationalize violence. If Trump is as bad as his critics are saying, then assass1nation sounds entirely justified. If you’re creative enough, or deluded enough, then you can make any sort of violence sound plausible. The pandemic of Trump Derangement Syndrome has gotten that bad.

Even if Trump were to save America $10 trillion dollars of government waste, drain the swamp, secure the borders, save thousands of lives through healthcare reform, convict thousands of violent gang members and fentanyl smugglers – every one of those “wins” will be interpreted in a conspiratorial way to make Trump out to be a racist, elitist, megalomaniacal dictator and all those “wins” are just bribing people into compliance with his demagoguery.

Government Overreach Across the Aisle

Now to be fair, Trump is certainly more aggressive in office than Biden was. But, every potential overreach from Trump is being challenged in the court system – as it should be. And the outsized power of executive orders, in Trump’s hands, stems from the Obama and Biden-era precedent, where both of them expanded the power of the Executive office. Trump is still working within their established order. Not to mention, we have recent memories of Obama earning the title “the Deporter and Chief,” and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer all talking tough about strong borders. Meanwhile, the deep state shenanigans of USAID, FBI, DOJ, and CIA, were operating at full force under Obama and Biden. We could also talk about government overreach in the form of DEI programs, activist judges, vaccine mandates, and more. Government overreach has never been a uniquely Republican phenomenon. If you’re on the progressive left, and you don’t fear government overreach till it’s coming from the other guys, then it’s not authoritarianism you dread, it’s conservatism.

If you’re on the progressive left, and you don’t fear government overreach till it’s coming from the other guys, then it’s not authoritarianism you dread, it’s conservatism.

Worldview Factors

One reason domestic terrorism is easily rationalized among progressives is because many on the left have already committed to a flexible view of truth, language, and reality. For example, the popular left-wing perspective known as Critical theory tends to oppose and question any hard facts, asserting instead that everything is a social construct. Instead of factual knowledge, it’s all perception and interpretation. Unfortunately, those can be stretched to make anything fit.

When your grasp of language, factual truth, and subjective bias are all entirely framed by social constructs, then truth doesn’t matter much anymore. You can make any behavior seem justified through word games, propaganda, and emotional manipulation. I’m sure, Ring-wingers have their self-serving biases too. But, social constructivism is a common theme among modern leftists, and it offers no safeguard against radicalism, violence, or domestic terrorism.

A lesson from 1984

This truth-issue reminds me of one of the most chilling details in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. When the protagonist, Winston Smith, is arrested and interrogated by a “Big Brother” agent, the agent eventually admits that truth doesn’t matter to him. For him, power is all that matters. Truth and falsity are just tools to be used, as needed, to collect more power. There’s no ultimate accountability for our actions, there are just winners and losers. Righteousness is irrelevant because any demon powerful enough to “win” can rewrite the history books afterward and make himself the hero. He doesn’t have to be a hero – that’s a truth-claim. He just has to win. Then he can invent the hero part.

Historically, reality has been the final arbiter between competing forces. People disagree about scientific theories? Let reality decide. People disagree about what “woman” means? Let reality decide. People disagree about American history since 1619? Let reality decide. But now a deeper deception has crept in. It whispers that no one really knows the truth. It’s all social constructs. It’s all relative. Perception is reality. Underneath it all, everything is really about the age-old struggle between the “haves vs have-nots”. These relativist themes tie together a whole batch of theories common to left-wing politics: postmodernism, critical theory, Marxism, Neo-Marxism, nihilism, absurdism, anarchism, critical race theory, queer theory, and more. From that adjustable platform, you can rationalize any amount of distortion, lying, deception, propaganda, and yes, even violence. All of that can be rationalized for the sake of securing more power for your side.

Let’s Call it What it Is

Ultimately, when it comes to actual political violence, we need to call it what is: Domestic Terrorism. And terrorism is a poor man’s authoritarianism. When people resort to terrorism they are using fear and violence to force their political agenda on others. That’s what we’re dealing with in all the “assass1nation idealization.” That’s what we’re dealing with in the fire-bombings on Teslas dealers. That’s what we dealt with in the BLM riots of 2020-2021. That’s what we dealt with in the attempts on Trump’s life.

People may think they’re just rooting for “the good guys” through pragmatic means, but when folks are quick to violence at the expense of courts, elections, and the democratic process, they are not fighting FOR democracy, they’re fighting for terror. The “means” has become the “ends”.

A Poor Man’s Authoritarianism

It’s like when a team of bank robbers get their way through fear and intimidation. For all we know, they may have suffered terrible injustice, maybe they are poor by no fault of their own, or they lost their jobs for bogus reasons. We don’t know. But regardless of the injustice done to them, they are still terrorizing innocent people in that bank. In that way, terrorism is a poor man’s authoritarianism. It’s a method of getting your own way, even if no one votes for you, likes you, or agrees with you.

“Terrorism is a poor man’s authoritarianism.”

As Christians we need to be especially discerning in these confusing times. Scripture encourages us to weigh both sides of a matter, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Proverbs 18:17; ESV). And Proverbs 6:17 warns us that, God hates “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood.” We need an extra dose of wisdom these days. It’s all too easy to be deceived by our own latent bias. It’s not enough to just “do the right thing” either. We must do it the right way or else it’s not the right thing.

Leftists cheering for violence is nothing new. And it’s not unique to the Left either. But, the degree of foolishness and delusion behind it might be a new peak. Meanwhile, Christ-followers must honor the sanctity of human life at every turn, even when it means loving our enemies and praying for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44).

References: 

[1] I don’t have exact numbers. We probably won’t have any credible surveys on this any time soon, since threatening the president’s life is a federal offense. You can see some of these threats replayed at Trump’s impeachment trial here. Christian author and political moderate, George Yancey has been writing about this alarming trend calling it “assass1nation idealization.” And conservative commentator Allie-Beth Stukey has been calling out democrat politicians and pundits for advocating for violence. The Trump administration also compiled a list of violent threats against Trump from Democrat politicians sometimes veiled, and sometimes overt.

[2] I’m not speaking of most or all people on the political left, but only a sample of folks on the left. For the record, there are radical revolutionaries on the right wing too.

[3] Regarding evil possibilities from “ordinary men,” see Christopher R. Browning, Ordinary Men (2017). See also, Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (2006).

Recommended Resources:

Was Jesus Intolerant? by Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Correct not Politically Correct: About Same-Sex Marriage and Transgenderism by Frank Turek (Book, MP4, )

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book, DVD, Mp3, Mp4, PowerPoint download, PowerPoint CD)

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

/by

The Myth of the Dark Ages

,

We have all heard about the “Dark Ages” between 500 AD and 1500 AD.  Some common descriptions include:

  • “There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the Dark Ages.”[1] – Ruth Hurmence Green (1915-1981, a notable atheist with the publication of her book The Born Again Skeptic’s Guide to the Bible).
  • Joseph Lewis in An Atheist Manifesto claims that “If you do not want to stop the wheels of progress; if you do not want to go back to the Dark Ages; if you do not want to live again under tyranny, then you must guard your liberty, and you must not let the church get control of your government. If you do, you will lose the greatest legacy ever bequeathed to the human race—intellectual freedom.”
  • Jeffrey Taylor, a correspondent for Atlantic Monthly and NPR’s All Things Considered states on com, “There is a reason the Middle Ages in Europe were long referred to as the Dark Ages; the millennium of theocratic rule that ended only with the Renaissance (that is, with Europe’s turn away from God toward humankind) was a violent time.”
  • Even as recently as Catherine Nixey’s book The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World states emphatically that “This is a book about the Christian destruction of the classical world. The Christian assault was not the only one – fire, flood, invasion, and time itself all played their part – but this book focuses on Christianity’s assault in particular” (xxxv). (See below for several extensive reviews and critiques of Nixey’s book.)
  • The diagram below, which has circulated on the internet, claims to demonstrate that the Middle Ages caused a tremendous hole in learning and advancement caused by Christianity.
  • Anne Fremantle in her study of medieval philosophers, The Age of Belief (1954), wrote: “of a dark, dismal patch, a sort of dull and dirty chunk of some ten centuries.”
  • Voltaire, the French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher, who attacked the church, described the period as one when “barbarism, superstition, and ignorance covered the face of the world.”
  • Rousseau declared that the era following the fall of Rome caused “Europe [to] relapse into the barbarism of the earliest ages.  The people of this part of the world . . . lived some centuries ago in a condition worse than ignorance.”
  • The great Roman historian Edward Gibbon called the fall of Rome the “triumph of barbarism and religion.” The famed scientist Carl Sagan also attributes a millennium gap [during the Middle Ages as] a poignant lost opportunity for the human species.”

Some other memes likewise blame Christianity for the so-called “Dark Ages” stunted growth.

Unfortunately, this derision of the Middle Ages as a “darkened period” continues into contemporary descriptions.  Such perpetrators include Bertrand Russell, Charles Van Doren, and William Manchester.

One Among Many Myths About Christianity

Like the myth that the church hindered science, or that everyone in the middle ages believed the earth was flat, or that Galileo was thrown in jail for promoting the heliocentric model of the universe (which you can read about in my previous posts linked); the term “dark ages” is a pejorative term to deride the period as backwards, ignorant, and dismal.  Given that the Christian church was the most influential institution in the Middle Ages, to reference that period as the “Dark Ages” is, in essence, to slander Christianity.  Who, in their right mind, wants to associate themselves with “incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness” as Manchester does in his A World Lit Only by Fire.

The Problem with This Myth

The problem with this myth is that it is so contrary to the facts.  If the “dark ages” were so unproductive and backward, how does one explain the proliferation of inventions and developments during this time period?  A simple listing of inventions, discoveries and developments demonstrates that the Middle Ages were anything but dark:

  • The collar and harness for horses and oxen enabled them to draw very heavy wagons, with increases in speed
  • The 8th century invention of iron horseshoes protecting the feet of horses by greatly improving their traction in difficult conditions
  • The swivel axel (9th century) was made large transport carts much more maneuverable
  • The invention of the horse-drawn furrow plow increased food production
  • The watermill was invented in the Middle Ages
  • The mechanical manufacturing of paper instead of being done by hand and foot
  • Wind power was harnessed to mill, grind, and pump water
  • Eyeglasses were invented in 1284 in northern Italy
  • The mechanical clock, a 13th-century invention, for centuries existed only in Medieval Europe
  • The blast furnace (12th century)
  • Spinning wheel (13th century)
  • The agricultural revolution of the three-field system
  • Chimneys (12th century)
  • Universities (1088 AD) [2]
  • Quarantine (14th century)
  • Musical Notation (11th century)
  • Western Harmony
  • Local Self-Government
  • Chartered Towns

Also, perpetuated about the “dark ages” is the loss of literary concern.  Stephen Greenblatt in The New Yorker (promoting his book The Swerve) declares that:

It is possible for a whole culture to turn away from reading and writing. As the empire crumbled and Christianity became ascendant, as cities decayed, trade declined, and an anxious populace scanned the horizon for barbarian armies, the ancient system of education fell apart. What began as downsizing went on to wholesale abandonment. Schools closed, libraries and academies shut their doors, professional grammarians and teachers of rhetoric found themselves out of work, scribes were no longer given manuscripts to copy. There were more important things to worry about than the fate of books.

In truth, the Middle Ages “did have a thriving literary and intellectual culture in which monks played a crucial, creative, and engaged role.” (source). Here is a small list of literary, historical, and philosophical masterpieces written during the so-called “Dark Ages”:

  • Alexiad, Anna Comnena
  • Beowulf
  • Caedmon’s Hymn
  • Book of the Civilized Man, Daniel of Beccles
  • The Canterbury Tales, Geoffrey Chaucer
  • Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius
  • Decameron, Giovanni Boccaccio
  • The Dialogue, Catherine of Siena
  • La divina commedia (The Divine Comedy), Dante Alighieri
  • First Grammatical Treatise, 12th-century work on Old Norse phonology
  • Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (The Ecclesiastical History of the English People), the Venerable Bede
  • The Lais of Marie de France, Marie de France
  • Mabinogion, various Welsh authors
  • Il milione (The Travels of Marco Polo), Marco Polo
  • Le Morte d’Arthur, Sir Thomas Malory
  • Poem of the Cid, anonymous Spanish author
  • Proslogium, Anselm of Canterbury
  • Queste del Saint Graal (The Quest of the Holy Grail), anonymous French author
  • Revelations of Divine Love, Julian of Norwich
  • Sic et Non, Abelard
  • Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, anonymous English author
  • The Song of Roland, anonymous French author
  • Spiritual Exercises, Gertrude the Great
  • Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas
  • The Tale of Igor’s Campaign, anonymous Russian author
  • Tirant lo Blanc, Joanot Martorell
  • The Travels of Sir John Mandeville, John Mandeville
  • Troilus and Criseyde, Geoffrey Chaucer
  • Yvain: The Knight of the Lion, Chrétien de Troyes

A host of others can be mentioned but just check out this wikipedia article on “Medieval Literature.”

Ad Hominem

The fact of the matter is the term “dark ages” is a form of the ad hominem argument.  In short, it’s name-calling.  Until one can demonstrate that the middle ages was backward and made no technological, societal, or intellectual advancement (which is not possible given the prolific advancement during this time as shown above), the term “Dark Ages” is just a term of derision, void of any substance.

One more telling point to demonstrate that the Middle Ages were much more advanced than even our current modern and contemporary age. In the Middle Ages, a peculiar institution fell into disfavor but tragically was revived in the modern era: slavery.  This very fact shows that the Modern Age is [arguably] much darker than the Middle Ages ever were. While slavery never disappeared, it was nothing like the transatlantic slave trade or modern slavery.

As Anthony Esolen, professor of English at Providence College says at the end of the video below:

“Instead of the ‘Dark Ages’ as it is popularly called.  The Middles Ages might better be described as the “Brilliant Ages.’”

Additional Resources on the Middle Ages

Quick Quotes from the Experts:

  • “Nevertheless, serious historians have known for decades that these claims [that the Middle Ages were dark] are a complete fraud.  Even the respectable encyclopedias and dictionaries now define the Dark Ages as a myth. The Columbia Encyclopedia rejects the term, nothing that ‘medieval civilization is no longer thought to have been so dim.’ Britannica disdains the name Dark Ages as ‘pejorative.’ And Wikipedia defines the Dark Ages as a ‘supposed period of intellectual darkness after the Fall of Rome.’ These views are easily verified.” (Rodney Stark, How the West Won. ISI Books, 2014)
  • “Let’s set the record straight. From 962 to 1321, Europe enjoyed one of the most magnificent flourishings of culture the world has ever seen.  In some ways, it was the most magnificent.  And this was not despite the fact that the daily tolling of the church bells provided the rhythm of men’s lives, but because of it.” (Anthony Esolen, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization, p.132)
  • “It’s not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one – just one – scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any.” (Tim O’Neill “The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews ‘God’s Philosophers’” Strange Notions)
  • “Western civilization was created in medieval Europe. The forms of thought and action which we take for granted in modern Europe and America, which we have exported to other substantial portions of the globe, and from which indeed we cannot escape, were implanted in the mentalities of our ancestors in the struggles of the medieval centuries.” (Cambridge University historian George Holmes’ Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe)

Books:

Articles:

Videos:

Book Reviews:

  1. The Swerve: How The World Became Modern by Stephen Greenblatt

Greenblatt’s Pulitzer Prize winning (and National Book Award, MLA book award, amongst others) The Swerve (2011) tells “a literary detective story about an intrepid Florentine bibliophile named Poggio Braccionlini, who, in 1417, stumbled upon a 500-year-old copy of [Lucretian’s] De Rerum Natura [On the Nature of Things] in a German monastery and set the poem free from centuries of neglect to work its intellectual magic on the world.” (source) While the literary side of the story is commendable (Greenblatt is a Shakespearean expert), it is the historical matter that is problematic. Greenblatt’s view of the Middle Ages continues to it as a dark and shallow intellectual vacuum in which the Renaissance (and later the Enlightenment) overcame its backward and regressive mentality.  Greenblatt declares in his The New Yorker article “The Answer Man: An Ancient Poem was Discovered – and the World Swerved”:

“Theology provided an explanation for the chaos of the Dark Ages: human beings were by nature corrupt. Inheritors of the sin of Adam and Eve, they richly deserved every miserable catastrophe that befell them. God cared about human beings, just as a father cared about his wayward children, and the sign of that care was anger. It was only through pain and punishment that a small number could find the narrow gate to salvation. A hatred of pleasure-seeking, a vision of God’s providential rage, and an obsession with the afterlife: these were death knells of everything Lucretius represented.”

Unfortunately, Greenblatt hasn’t kept up with modern medieval historiography.  Both Jim Hinch, in the Los Angeles Review of Books, and Laura Miles, over at Vox, point at his errors.

  1. “Why Stephen Greenblatt Is Wrong — and Why It Matters” by Jim Hinch | Los Angeles Review of BooksDec 1, 2012

Apparently, Lucretian was not as obscure in the Middle Ages as Greenblatt represents.  Hinch writes that “Cambridge classicist Michael Reeve pointed out five years ago in The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius, scholars have long detected ‘Lucretian influence in north-Italian writers of the ninth to eleventh century, in the Paduan pre-humanists about 1300, in Dante, and in Petrarch and Bocaccio.’ Greenblatt cites the Cambridge Companion numerous times in his endnotes. Did he read it?” Obviously not.

Greenblatt’s caricature of the (read the quotes with sarcasm) “Dark Ages” as living life as if God is a cosmic kill joy is puzzling to Hinch as well: “Equally untrue is Greenblatt’s claim that medieval culture was characterized by ‘a hatred of pleasure-seeking, a vision of God’s providential rage and an obsession with the afterlife.’ I know Greenblatt has read Chaucer. He’s quoted from him in numerous books. Has he forgotten the ribald pleasure-seeking in The Canterbury Tales? What about the 13th-century French courtly love epic The Romance of the Rose? The twelfth-century Arthurian romances of Chrétien de Troyes? I find no rage in Dante’s complex vision of human morality and providential grace in the Divine Comedy. Nor do I detect an ounce of asceticism in the ravishing unicorn tapestries in the Cloisters Museum in New York. Or in the rose window in Chartres. Or in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. Or in the gracious courts of the Alhambra.”

It seems Greenblatt is a good literary scholar, but a terrible Medieval historian, according to Hinch.

  1. “Stephen Greenblatt’s The Swerve racked up prizes — and completely misled you about the Middle Ages” by Laura Saetveit Miles | VoxJuly 20, 2016

Laura Saetveit Miles, professor at the University of Bergen in Norway, declares that

The Swerve doesn’t promote the humanities to a broader public so much as it deviously precipitates the decline of the humanities, by dumbing down the complexities of history and religion in a way that sets a deeply unfortunate precedent. If Greenblatt’s story resonates with its many readers, it is surely because it echoes stubborn, made-for-TV representations of medieval “barbarity” that have no business in a nonfiction book, much less one by a Harvard professor.

In a very revealing moment in Miles article on The Swerve she declares the book as dangerous:

“When I finished, I put down The Swerve on the table, and the academic side of my brain kicked back in. I had let myself read it as fiction. Yet it was supposed to be not fiction. When I thought of it as a scholarly book, and thought of all those thousands and thousands of people out there who read it and believed every word because the author is an authority and wins prizes, I realized: This book is dangerous.” [emphasis added]

Why is it dangerous? Because it is worse the Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code:

“Every page of The Swerve strives to present the Renaissance as an intellectual awakening that triumphs over the oppressive abyss of the Dark Ages. The book pushes the Renaissance as a rebirth of the classical brilliance nearly lost during centuries mired in dullness and pain. (In Greenblatt’s Middle Ages, bored monks literally sit in the dark when not flagellating themselves.)

This invention of modernity relies on a narrative of good guys (Poggio, as well as Lucretius) defeating bad guys and thus bringing forth a glorious transformation. This is dangerous not only because it is inaccurate but, more importantly, because it subscribes to a progressivist model of history that insists on the onward march of society, a model that all too easily excuses the crimes and injustices of modernity.

But history does not fit such cookie-cutter narratives. Having studied medieval culture for nearly two decades, I can instantly recognize the oppressive, dark, ignorant Middle Ages that Greenblatt depicts for 262 pages as, simply, fiction. It’s fiction worse than Dan Brown, because it masquerades as fact.”

  1. “Book Review: The Swerve: How the Renaissance Began” byJohn Monfasani | Reviews in History July 2012

John Monfasani, professor of history at the University at Albany, State University of New York damning declares that “Greenblatt has penned an entertaining but wrong-headed belletristic tale.”

  1. A World Lit Only by Fire: the Medieval Mind and the Renaissance by William Manchester

Manchester begins his scathing history of the middle ages by claiming that

“The densest medieval centuries – the six hundred years between, roughly, A.D. 400 and A.D. 1000 – are still widely known as the Dark Ages.” (Manchester, 3) William Manchester does admit that modern historians have abandoned that phrase but the “intellectual life had vanished from Europe” and declares in the very first paragraph of the book: “Nevertheless, if value judgments are made, it is undeniable that most of what is known about the period is unlovely. After the extant fragments have been fitted together, the portrait which emerges is a melange of incessant warfare, corruption, lawlessness, obsession with strange myths, and an almost impenetrable mindlessness.”

The wikipedia entry about the book states that,

“In the book, Manchester scathingly posits, as the title suggests, that the Middle Ages were ten centuries of technological stagnation, short-sightedness, bloodshed, feudalism, and an oppressive Church wedged between the golden ages of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance.”

Technological stagnation

Short-sightedness

Bloodshed

An oppressive church

Between the golden age of Rome and the Renaissance.

Nothing really new about this negative report about the so-called “dark ages.”  The only problem is that other modern historians have dismissed and criticized the book because of its gross errors, misinformation, and out of date understanding of the era.

Jeremy DuQuesnay Adams, professor and Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor of Medieval Europe of SMU and Ph.D. from Harvard (Manchester has an BA and MA in English, no training in history or a history degree), grudgingly reviewed the book. In Speculum: A Journal of Medieval Studies, Adams remarked that Manchester’s work contained “some of the most gratuitous errors of fact and eccentricities of judgment this reviewer has read (or heard) in quite some time.” He begins the review by lamenting:

“This is an infuriating book. The present reviewer hoped that it would simply fade away, as its intellectual qualities (too strong a word) deserved. Unfortunately, it has not: one keeps meeting well-intentioned, perfectly intelligent people (including some colleagues in other disciplines – especially the sciences) who have just read this book and want to discuss why anyone would ever become a medievalist.”

Adams goes on to point out that Manchester’s assertions about clothing, diet, and medieval person’s views of time and sense of self ran counter to the conclusions of established historians of the Middle Ages of the 20th-century.

An example of his errors is with the famed Pied Piper. Manchester claims that the Piper of Hamelin was  “was horrible, a psychopath and pederast who, on June 24, 1484, spirited away 130 children in the Saxon village of Hammel and used them in unspeakable ways. Accounts of the aftermath vary. According to some, the victims were never seen again; others told of disembodied little bodies found scattered in the forest underbrush or festooning the branches of trees.”

Over at The Straight Dope we learn that “Manchester doesn’t footnote this passage” and that their own “research suggests that Manchester got some of the details wrong–among other things, he appears to be off about 200 years on the date.”

  1. “Review of A World Lit Only by Fire” Kirkus Review, May 20th, 2010.

This review reveals that Manchester, by his own admission, did NOT master any scholarship on the early 16th century, which ” dooms him to retelling the same old stories recounted countless times before.”

In the book’s “Author’s Note”, Manchester says, “It is, after all, a slight work, with no scholarly pretensions. All the sources are secondary, and few are new; I have not mastered recent scholarship on the early sixteenth century.

So, Manchester, who has no formal training in history, not a medievalist, admits to not using primary sources as well as not mastering any recent scholarship of the early 16th century, has penned a propaganda piece (at best) of the middle ages. Again, another myth that the middle ages were dark.

  1. The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey

The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey is one of the latest publications (2017) propagating the dark ages myth.  Nixey studied classics at Cambridge and taught the subject for several years before becoming a journalist on the arts desk at the Times (UK). Her book, The Darkening Age, no surprise, focuses on “the Christian destruction of the classical world” (xxxv).  Her prologue characterizes Christians as “destroyers, . . . marauding bands of bearded, black-robed zealots” whose “ . . . attacks were primitive, thuggish, and very effective.” She goes on to say that “these men moved in packs—later in swarms of as many as five hundred—and when they descended utter destruction followed” (xix).

Some of the reviews and reactions to Nixey’s book can be listed:

  • The esteemed historian of Late Antiquity of Oxford University, Dame Averil Cameron, calls Nixey’s book “a travesty” condemning it as “overstated and unbalanced.”
  • Lecturer of Medieval history at Exeter University, Dr. Levi Roach, stated that Nixey’s book “does not seek to present a balanced picture (…) this is a book of generalizations. (…) Nixey (…) is unwilling to see shades of grey” in his evaluation at Literary Review titled “At Cross Purposes.” He goes on to state in the article that, “to characterize late-antique Christians as ‘thugs’, as Nixey repeatedly does, it perhaps defensible, to call them ‘primitive’ and ‘stupid’, as she also does, is not. All to often Christians are cast as the aggressors, even when, as Nixey acknowledges more than once, they are responding to prior attacks.” And “Perhaps most worryingly, in embracing this line of argument [i.e., over-generalizing] Nixey ends up endorsing the long-debunked view of the Middle Ages as a period of blind faith and intellectual stagnation (which she again, problematically equates with one another.)”
  • Tim O’Neill, over at his website History for Atheists, give a long, detailed analysis of Nixey’s book and concludes, “Good history books, including good popular history, should give the reader a greater insight into the period and the subject. They should make the reader better informed and, in doing so, make them wiser. They should deepen understanding, so that anything else read on the subject from that point tends to add layers to that depth. Watts’ book [The Final PaganGeneration] does this. O’Donnell’s book [Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity] does this. Duffy’s book [The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England, 1400-1580] does this. Nixey’s book does not. Anyone reading Nixey’s book is likely to come away thinking they know and understand more but will actually have learned things that would have to be unlearned or corrected later. Nixey’s is not a good history book. It is, as Dame Averil said so pithily, ‘a travesty’.”
  • “Review of The Darkening Ageby Catherine Nixey” by Tim O’Neill. History for Atheists November 29, 2017
  • “When History Turns Anti-Christian” by Bryan Litfin. The Gospel CoalitionApril 5, 2019
  • “Book review, ‘The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World’ by Catherine Nixey” by Joshua Herring. The Acton Institute December 22, 2017
  • “Blame the Christians” by Averil Cameron. The Tablet September 21, 2017
  • “At Cross Purposes” by Levi Roach. Literary Review November 2017
  • “Reactions to and Reviews of Catherine Nixey’s The Darkening Age” by Cornelis Hoogerwerf. What is Written October 22, 2017

References: 

[1] [Editor’s Note: These quotes are presented as is. If any source information is lacking, that’s how it was presented in the original.]

[2] [Editor’s note: The University of Bologna, established in 1088, is widely considered the first and longest-running university in the world. The University of Al-Quaraouiyine in Fez, Morocco, a Muslim institution, is sometimes credited as the first but it’s disputed whether that school was a “university” (marked by free inquiry, freedom of thought, and free speech) before Bologna was established. Nevertheless, it too is a medieval creation. So Steve Lee’s thesis is unchallenged either way.

Recommended Resources: 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

Debate: Does God Exist? Turek vs. Hitchens (DVD), (mp4 Download) (MP3)

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

 

J. Steve Lee has taught Apologetics for over two and a half decades at Prestonwood Christian Academy. He also has taught World Religions and Philosophy at Mountain View College in Dallas and Collin College in Plano. With a degree in history and education from the University of North Texas, Steve continued his formal studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a M.A. in philosophy of religion and has pursued doctoral studies at the University of Texas at Dallas and is finishing his dissertation at South African Theological Seminary. He has published several articles for the Apologetics Study Bible for Students as well as articles and book reviews in various periodicals including Philosophia Christi, Hope’s Reason: A Journal of Apologetics, and the Areopagus Journal. Having an abiding love for fantasy fiction, Steve has contributed chapters to two books on literary criticism of Harry Potter: Harry Potter for Nerds and Teaching with Harry Potter. He even appeared as a guest on the podcast MuggleNet Academia (“Lesson 23: There and Back Again-Chiasmus, Alchemy, and Ring Composition in Harry Potter”). He is married to his lovely wife, Angela, and has two grown boys, Ethan and Josh.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3Gsq4BN

/by

33 Defenses for the Resurrection of Jesus: Part 2

[Editor’s Note: In part 1 of this series on the Resurrection, Brian Chilton laws out five lines of evidence for the resurrection in the Acronym: RISEN – Records of Jesus’s resurrection, Irritating details about the resurrection that show its truthfulness, Sightings of the risen Jesus, Early testimony about the risen Jesus, and the Newfound faith of the disciples. He then presents and explains how ancient records and irritating historical details point to the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. In Part 2 of this series, Chilton will explore how early testimony, resurrection sightings, and the newfound faith of key Christians point to that same resurrection event.]   

 

Sightings of the Risen Jesus

The biblical texts reports many witnesses who saw Jesus alive. The resurrection appearances of Jesus were a very public affair. This makes it even more difficult to dismiss.

(15) 500 Eyewitnesses of the Risen Jesus     

In the NT Creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9, 500 people were listed as eyewitnesses who saw the risen Jesus at the same time. Often, women were not included in public lists. If this continued with the early church, then only men were counted in this number. This would mean that possibly over 1,000 people saw the risen Jesus at the same moment in time.

(16) Women at the Tomb      

As previously noted, the female disciples of Jesus were the first to see him alive after he had risen from the dead. They are universally listed as the first eyewitnesses of the risen Jesus in all the Gospel narratives.

(17) Twelve Disciples 

After the betrayal of Judas and his suicide, the church replaced Judas with Matthias. Nonetheless, these disciples are either called the Twelve, or the Eleven in the resurrection reports due to their diminished number (Matt. 28:16; Lk. 24:9, 33). The grouping of the disciples into a singular number was done earlier in church history rather than later. Usages of “the Eleven” or “the Twelve” denote an earlier timeframe.

(18) Sighting Reported by James      

James the brother of Jesus is listed in the report of eyewitnesses in 1 Corinthians 15. He was not a believer in Jesus prior to the resurrection. Yet he is later identified as a follower and the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

(19) Family of Jesus   

Mary and the family of Jesus are also listed among the list of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. The brothers and sisters of Jesus became believers after the resurrection, indicating that something big happened between the crucifixion and the advent of the church.

(20) Sighting Reported by Paul         

Paul was an enemy of the church and even persecuted early church members. However, Paul became a believer and an early apostle of the church after seeing the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus.

Early Testimony

Skeptics often claim that the resurrection of Jesus was a later invention of the church. However, data strongly suggests that the message of the resurrection was proclaimed early in the life of the church. The report emerged at the creation of the church. The church flowed out from the belief that Jesus had literally risen from the dead.

(21) New Testament Creeds  

NT creeds are early confessions, statements of belief, hymns, and other formulations that flowed out of the early church and were recorded throughout the NT epistles. NT creeds are found in 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, Philippians, Ephesians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, and various other documents. Some are even found in the Gospels and the book of Revelation. Among these formulations, one of the most important and most agreed-upon creeds is found in 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lays out the fundamentals of the resurrection while also speaking of those who had encountered the risen Jesus. The creeds are strewn about the NT and date to no more than 5 years after the resurrection, with the 1 Corinthians 15 creed dating to within months of the resurrection itself.

(22) Oral Traditions of the Gospels  

The early church was founded in what was a largely oral culture. While I do believe that Jewish men had a higher literacy rate than the common Greco-Roman world at that time, the cost to publish materials was quite expensive. Dr. Craig Keener suggests that the publication of the Gospel of Mark or the book of Romans could have equaled around $2,000 to $3,000 in modern currency—twenty denarii in ancient currency. [1] A project like that would require group funding. Nonetheless, most material was passed along orally.

Now before you object, know that it has been shown that cultures can pass along volumes of information from one generation to another without changing any major detail. The Talmud is an example of that process. Even still, oral traditions, like the NT creeds, have certain traits that can be detected. Through my research, I discovered that the Gospel of Matthew contains many of these traits, especially with the teachings of Jesus. While I have not researched the resurrection traditions—but plan to do so—I did find that the statements referencing the resurrection itself found a strong root in early oral traditions. Thus, the statements referencing the resurrection arose prior to the writing of the book. The Matthean Great Commission statement offered by the risen Jesus holds all the traits of an NT creed, thus indicating its early nature.

(23) Sermon Summaries in Acts        

Oral traditions are not only found within the Gospels, they are also found in the sermon summaries of Paul and Peter in the book of Acts. Among these summaries include Paul and Peter’s proclamation that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead. The early nature of some of these proclamations places them in the 30s and 40s.

(24) Use of the Title “Lord” with Jesus         

NT scholar Richard Bauckham deduced that the “earliest Christology was the highest Christology.” By that, he meant that the early Christian movement held a high theological view of Jesus, equating him with the Father in some sense. This is evident with the thorough usage of the title “kurios,”—a Greek term meaning “Lord.” Gary Habermas has implied that this is one of the clearest examples that early Christians held Jesus to be in some part divine.

The title “Lord Jesus Christ” is often associated with the resurrection stories, including Thomas’s awe-struck response “My Lord and my God” when seeing the risen Jesus for himself. This title would not have been applied to one who was only crucified, seeing a person hung from a tree was believed to have been accursed. Something to the effect of a resurrection would have been necessary to show the divine nature of Jesus. In other words, a crucified man alone would never be elevated to the status of “Lord.”

(25) The Exclusive Use of “Son of Man” in the Gospels and Its Association with the Resurrection

Jesus almost exclusively uses the title “Son of man” about himself. The title is only used four times outside of the Gospels—once by Stephen the first martyr as he was being killed (Acts 7:56), a quotation of Ezekiel in Hebrews 2:6, and two references in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:13; 14:14), both connecting Jesus to the Son of Man character in Daniel 7:13–14. In the Gospels, however, Jesus uses the title for himself 14 times in Mark, 10 times in Q, 7 times exclusively in Matthew, 7 times exclusively in Luke, and 13 times in John. Altogether, Jesus uses the title 51 times. [2]

Contrary to popular belief, the title does not refer to the humanity of Jesus. Rather, it speaks of a divine being who takes on a humanlike form as he approaches the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7:13–14. Furthermore, the title is connected to the idea that Jesus would rise from the dead (Lk. 11:30) and ascend to the right hand of his Father (Mk. 14:62). The title is so strongly connected with the teachings of Jesus that NT scholar Joachim Jeremias commented, “…the apocalyptic Son of Man sayings which we have recognized as the earliest stratum must in essentials go back to Jesus himself.”[3]

(26) Early Stratum in the Resurrection Record          

While many aspects of the resurrection report in the four Gospels may seem a bit confusing, a good chronology of events can be placed together. Nonetheless, there is a common stratum within all reports of the resurrection events that glues them together. The similarities between the reports include the puzzling and mysterious nature of the events, the eyes of people are opened to the identity of Jesus, beams of heavenly light sometimes accompany the divine presence, along with the mysterious appearance and disappearance of Jesus at will. Jeremias calls this stratum a chiaroscuro—a contrast between light and dark.[4] Additionally, these reports include Aramaisms, such as Mary Magdalene calling Jesus “rabboni” (Jn. 20:16) and the potential inclusion of Jesus’s historical name (“Jesus of Nazareth”) (Mk. 16:6).

(27) Early Belief that the Tomb was Empty  

In his magnum opus, Gary Habermas notes that around 75% of scholars maintain the historicity of the empty tomb, still clearly accepted by a vast majority of critical scholars. [5] Even still, a good deal of evidence suggests that the church proclaimed an empty tomb very early in its history. The empty tomb appears in three of the four Gospels. [6] Additionally, the acknowledgment of the empty tomb appears in one of the sermon summaries in Acts, which could quite well be an NT creed.

Paul states, “When they had carried out all that had been written about him, they took him down from the tree and put him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and he appeared for many days to those who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are now his witnesses to the people” (Acts 13:29–30, CSB). The sermon summaries in Acts are extremely early. Even if the summaries date to the 40s, we have very early testimony of an empty tomb. NT scholar James D.G. Dunn attests, “The story of the empty tomb was probably being told in Jerusalem shortly after the event.” [7]

(28) Church of the Holy Sepulchre    

Speaking of the empty tomb, this brings us to defense #28. Protestants often claim that the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem was the likely place of Jesus’s burial. But this simply cannot be true. The tomb is too old to have belonged to Joseph of Arimathea. Furthermore, it holds no historical grounding, contains no features of a first-century tomb, and was likely created in the 7th century BC. Remember that the tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea was newly cut (Lk. 23:53). Though the Garden Tomb does not match, the same cannot be said of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Due to repair work, the stone slab covering the tomb had to be removed temporarily. Underneath, researchers found remnants of an earlier tomb, labeled with a cross amid first-century limestone. The tomb was said to have been discovered by Helena, the mother of Constantine, once Christianity became a legal religion in Rome. Local Christians had been worshiping at the tomb for centuries as they acknowledged that the tomb belonged to Jesus. Earlier Roman authorities placed a statue of Venus to desecrate the site. However, this act did not deter the Christians from their worship activities. Later, the tomb was cut out and a cathedral was built around it. Archaeologist Ted Wright once said that he was 98% certain that the tomb was the authentic burial site of Jesus. [8]

Newfound Faith

The last letter of our acronym denotes the newfound faith of the early believers. Picture yourself as one of the early disciples. You invested yourself fully in the cause of Jesus. Despite your good intentions and wholehearted investment, your beloved leader dies on a Roman cross. Everything you worked for is now lost. Quite honestly, most of the disciples probably thought about going back to their chosen occupation before following Jesus. However, due to the resurrection, they embraced a newfound truth that they had not expected nor anticipated. Jesus defeated death and ushered in a new mode of existence. Light replaced dark, life overcame death, and the goodness of God triumphed over the powers of evil.

(29) The Transformation of Paul      

The transformation of Paul was quite baffling. Paul had been a persecutor of the church. Yet after seeing the risen Jesus, he not only accepted the tenets of Christianity, but he was one of the hardest-working Christian evangelists of all time.

(30) The Transformation of James   

None of the family members of Jesus, outside of Mary the mother of Jesus, believed him to be the Messiah prior to his resurrection (Jn. 7:5). However, oddly, Jesus’s siblings became believers after his resurrection. James became such a strong believer in Jesus that he became the first pastor of the Church of Jerusalem.

(31) The Willingness of the Disciples to Die for What They Knew to Be True        

Even though some people will die for something they mistakenly believe to be true, no one will die for something they know to be a lie, especially if that condemnation includes an excruciating death. Yet the disciples of Jesus were willing to die for what they knew to be true. They never wavered, and they never changed their minds. They knew Jesus to be the risen Son of God.

(32) Change of the Day of Worship from Saturday to Sunday        

Perhaps one of the most astounding defenses for the resurrection was the early disciples’ decision to change their day of worship from the Sabbath day (Friday evening—Saturday) to early Sunday morning. They called this day the “Lord’s Day” (Rev. 1:10). The change in worship times was done to commemorate the resurrection of Jesus. N. T. Wright maintains that 1 Corinthians 16:2 implies that the church began keeping Sunday as the Lord’s Day as early as the mid-50s if not earlier. [9] In the early church, leaders often waited until early Easter Sunday to baptize everyone who had come to faith the previous year. Easter Sunday became one of the most important days of the year for the early Christians because of the resurrection of Jesus.

(33) Jesus’s Fulfillment of Messianic Prophecies     

Last, but certainly not least, the early Christians professed that Jesus had fulfilled numerous messianic prophecies predicted about the Messiah. And they were absolutely on point! Space does not permit us to elucidate every prophecy at this time. But it can be said that Jesus fulfilled so many prophecies about the Messiah through his life, death, and resurrection that it is mathematically impossible to leave to chance. It is assuredly impossible for anyone by mere human means to fulfill the prophecies written about the Messiah, particularly concerning his resurrection.

Admittedly, this article turned out much longer than I anticipated. And in full disclosure, I took a shotgun approach to the defenses for the resurrection as I laid out multiple lines of defense.[10] Some are assuredly stronger than others. Nevertheless, given these 33 data points, a person can build a cumulative case for the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday.

There is much more that could be offered, such as the inability of alternative theories to explain all the details, further studies into oral traditions and their trustworthiness, enemy attestation, the chronology of Easter events, and other factors concerning Jesus’s post-Easter appearances. Suffice it to say, we have every reason to believe that Jesus is the risen Son of God. So, what will you do with the data that has been given? It’s one thing to accept that Jesus arose from the dead, but it is quite another to accept him as the Lord of your life. What will you do with the risen Jesus?

References: 

[1] Craig S. Keener, IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, 418.

[2] Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, 259–260.

[3] Ibid., 266.

[4] Ibid., 303.

[5] Gary Habermas, On the Resurrection: Evidences, 141.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 836.

[8] Look for Bellator Christi’s interview with Ted Wright on earlier episodes.

[9] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God, 297, 579, 594.

[10] [Editor’s note: Originally, this 2 part series was a single blog article at Bellator Christi – https://bellatorchristi.com/2024/03/29/33-defenses-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus/]

Recommended Resources:

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian 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); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3RFTCOC

/by

The Real Issue and the Christian Philosopher

Human beings are rational animals, according to Aristotle. As animals, human beings are sensible beings who have sensations and movements (in contrast to plants, which are living beings without true sensation and self-initiated movement). But human beings are not just any kind of animal. We have a special quality that separates us from animals, plants and the rest of the material world, which is that we have a rational soul.

Furthermore, leaving Aristotle aside (as we shall see later), this doesn’t mean that human beings are the summit of all that exists. God, who is infinite and intellect in its fullest form can alone claim his proper place at the top of the summit (although, technically speaking, He is the foundation) of all that exists. Still, since human beings are rational animals, but are also finite, it is natural (and by that I literally mean that it is part of human nature), to ask questions.

Why Metaphysics Matters

Now, human beings can and do ask questions about a lot of topics. But there are some questions that matter most not because of their necessarily immediate practical implication, but because of the effect their answers have on the questions that do possess an immediate practical implication. That is, we cannot properly begin to understand secondary matters until we first understand primary matters. And one of the most basic primary questions to answer is “what is (or are) the first principle of reality?”.

Metaphysics deals with these types of primary questions and its importance is by now evident. The results of every other discipline depend on resolving fundamental metaphysical questions. The Christian (let alone the trained Christian philosopher) can’t escape this reality. Simply put, a wrong move in metaphysics will affect doctrines about God, creation, and salvation.

This fact of metaphysics has become evident to me in the modern debate about divine simplicity. Dr. William Lane Craig rejects the Thomistic understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity and this means his conception of God is different (very different) than that of an existential Thomist, and proper logic mandates that both conceptions of God cannot be correct. Dr. Craig says, “Deny the real distinction between essence and existence, and the nerve of Thomism is cut.[1]”  This claim strikes me as plainly true. I’m not talking about whether we should deny the real distinction between essence and existence (that’s a whole separate matter), but he is correct in that if we do so, the nerve of Thomism is cut, and with it, the Thomistic understanding of God must be denied.

This important matter, the distinction between essence and existence, is the central focus of this blog and my aim is to show how different views of this distinction lead to a different understanding of God, raising the stakes for the Christian (and the Christian philosopher) to ensure that his metaphysics is correct.

In this regard, human beings face a monumental task. Humans, as rational animals, must wrestle with the fact that they can ask questions beyond even their own limitations. For example, as any Christian should affirm, human beings (who only have a human essence) are contingent beings to whom existence owes nothing to make them exist necessarily, want to properly explain existence as a principle and its relationship with essences in general. Despite this limitation, we will see that even in this brief essay there is much that can be said in this regard.

Four Philosophers, Four Visions and Their Implications

Aquinas: Let’s start our brief analysis with none other than Thomas Aquinas. He maintained that there is a real distinction between essence and existence. This means that he believed that essence and existence are real and distinct principles that together constitute the being of a thing. A thing’s essence is what it is, and existence is that it is. Following Dr. Richard Howe’s use of human beings to illustrate this, essence is what makes you human; existence is what makes you a being.[2]

The only exception to this rule is God, in whom essence and existence are identical, and this has several implications. First, he is unique and totally distinct from everything else that exists. He alone is existence; everything else just has existence. Second, as existence itself, God is the only necessary being. Every other being is contingent and depends on God for its existence. Third, God’s omnipotence is evident in His ability to bring things into existence from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Between existence and non-existence, there’s an infinite metaphysical chasm that only an infinite cause can bridge.

Scotus: Aquinas’ view of God, stemming from his real distinction between essence and existence, can be contrasted with that of John Duns Scotus. Scotus maintained that every essence has some degree of being, according to its (proportional) intrinsic perfection. This implies that the distance between any finite being and nothingness is not infinite. As a result, God’s omnipotence is primarily expressed not in sustaining beings in existence, but in freely determining which essences are actualized in reality. In other words, for Scotus, God’s power, is primarily evident in freely determining what comes to be, rather than in directly causing the act of being itself. It is worth noting that Aquinas integrates both perspectives, affirming divine volition alongside God’s continuous causal role in sustaining creatures in existence.

Plato: On the other hand, Plato did not conceive of existence as an act received from God. Plato believed that the forms—eternal, unchanging, immaterial, and universal realities—are the highest level of reality, while the material world is just an imperfect reflection of them. As such, Plato’s god is really a craftsman-like figure who does not create things (let alone via creation ex nihilo), he merely imposes order on pre-existing chaotic matter in accordance with the forms. He works with what already exists; he does not make things to be or define what they are. There’s no doubt that Plato’s God is a “smaller” God than that of Aquinas.

Spinoza: Benedict Spinoza’s views are also important to mention. He denied the distinction between essence and existence because he maintained that only one substance exists. The implications of this view are profound. If everything that exists is the same substance, that means that everything that exists collapses into a single substance. As a result, God is identical with nature. There is really no distinction between God and everything else, leading directly to pantheism.

It is evident that this view is incompatible with the metaphysical commitments required by Christianity. We need not delve into the implications of this view for divine omnipotence or the necessity of creation. Suffice it to say that since this view denies the distinction between God and His creation, this implies that you, I, and all human beings are part of the same divine nature. This position plainly contradicts Scripture —and, indeed, everyday experience.

Conclusion

There’s much more that could be said about this, and many other important philosophers throughout history could be cited. However, this brief analysis shows that one’s metaphysical conclusions can strongly influence one’s theology. Every Christian should desire to know God and reality as they truly are. To do so properly, one’s metaphysics must be correct. Therefore, we as Christians, must make sure to get our metaphysics right.

References: 

[1] William Lane Craig and Bishop Robert Barron, Bishop Barron & William Lane Craig Symposium, Part 1: Divine Simplicity, Reasonable Faith, accessed February 21, 2025,
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/bishop-barron-william-lane-craig-symposium-part-1-divine-simplicity

Symposium, Part 1: Divine Simplicity. Reasonable Faith. Accessed February 21, 2025.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/bishop-barron-william-lane-craig-symposium-part-1-divine-simplicity

Gilson, Étienne. Being and Some Philosophers. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1952.

———.Craig, William Lane, and Bishop Robert Barron. Bishop Barron & William Lane Craig

[2] Aquinas on Existence and the Essence-Existence Distinction,” Southern Evangelical Seminary, accessed February 21, 2025, https://ses.edu/aquinas-on-existence-and-the-essence-existence-distinction/

———.Aquinas on Existence and the Essence-Existence Distinction.” Southern Evangelical
Seminary. Accessed February 21, 2025
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/lectures/bishop-barron-william-lane-craig-
symposium-part-1-divine-simplicity

Recommended Resources:

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)   

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)

Your Most Important Thinking Skill by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, (mp4) download

 

Diego Fallas earned his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. During his studies, he became passionate about Christian apologetics. He quickly found himself immersed in the field as he started taking seminary courses in apologetics and became a Reasonable Faith chapter director. Today, he is the Director of Operations for CrossExamined.org, and teaches and speaks in Latin America. Diego is the co-host of the weekly Livestream show Piensalo Bien and is currently completing his M.A. in philosophy from Southern Evangelical Seminary.

/by

33 Defenses for the Resurrection of Jesus

,

I told someone recently that Easter (aka., “Resurrection Sunday”) is my favorite holiday. It holds a greater prominence for the child of God than even Christmas. Up until the commercialization of Christmas, Easter was the central holiday for the Christian. One of my good friends recently stated that her pastor called Easter the “Super Bowl for Christianity,” and for good reason. Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Are there, however, good reasons for believing that Jesus of Nazareth literally arose from the dead on that first Resurrection Sunday? The historicity of the resurrection and the Gospels were a major sticking point for me in my time of doubt. If the resurrection was only wishful thinking, then believers have no genuine hope for their eternity. Yet if the resurrection is true and did occur, then the believer has a hope that nothing else could afford. But do we know that it did happen?

In my book The Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, I used an acronym to lay out the core fundamental evidence for the resurrection. However, my doctoral studies revealed even deeper reasons to accept the resurrection of Christ as a real event of history. Using the acronym RISEN as a launch pad, we will consider 33 defenses for the resurrection of Jesus. For those who are unfamiliar with Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, the RISEN acronym stands for the following:

Records of Jesus’s resurrection,

Irritating details about the resurrection that show its truthfulness,

Sightings of the risen Jesus,

Early testimony about the risen Jesus,

Newfound faith of the disciples.[1]

Records of Jesus’s Crucifixion and Resurrection

Jesus’s resurrection maintains a high level of credibility when considering the early records that speak of this event. For this section, five groups of independent sources will serve as the first five defenses for the resurrection.

(1) Five Independent Testimonies in the Gospels    

Now, you likely read the above statement and asked yourself, “Five independent sources in the Gospels? How can there be five independent sources when there are only four Gospels? Within the four Gospels, scholars recognize five independent sources behind the texts.

  1. Q, the initial for the German word quelle,meaning source, contains the independent sources shared by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Scholars maintain that Q may be among the earliest source material in the Gospels.[2]
  2. The pre-Markan material makes up the second independent source, and it could very well date to the 30s.
  3. The source material marked “M” represents the material that is exclusive to Matthew’s Gospel.
  4. The “L” material is source material that is only found in the Gospel of Luke.
  5. The independent source material found in John’s Gospel.

The Markan material briefly describes the resurrection of Jesus. Q may not explicitly reference the resurrection, but it does contain material where Jesus alludes to, if not boldly predict his resurrection. Additionally, M, L, and John’s material all speak of the resurrection of Jesus, even noting the risen appearances of Jesus. Altogether, these five sources alone offer a strong case for the resurrection of Jesus.

(2) Independent Testimonies in the Epistles

Like the Gospels, we must consider the individual epistles as singular documents of history. Paul discusses the resurrection of Jesus thoroughly in 1 Corinthians 15. James the brother of Jesus does not specifically discuss the resurrection. He does, however, call Jesus by the title “Lord,” indicating that he identified him with divinity. Only the resurrection could have convinced James of this association. Peter wrote two epistles. In those documents, he refers to Christ as the cornerstone (1 Pet. 2:6) and alludes to the resurrection with his teachings of God raising up those who had suffered. Likewise, John wrote three letters and identified Jesus with the Logos (wisdom) of God—a tremendously high theology that flowed from an understanding of the risen Jesus.

(3) Extra-biblical Christian Testimonies about the Resurrection     

Outside of the biblical texts, numerous Christian authors of the first and second-century, along with subsequent generations mentioned the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus This present exercise will not permit us to list all of them at this time. Some of the more prominent writers include Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and Justin Martyr.

(4) Extra-biblical Roman Testimonies about the Resurrection        

Early Roman historians make mention of Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christian’s belief that Jesus had appeared to them alive on the third day after Jesus’s crucifixion. These historians include Tacitus (AD 55–120), Josephus (c. AD 37–97), Suetonius (AD 69–122), Thallus (c. AD 52; who mentioned the darkness that surrounded the region and tried to rationalize it), Pliny the Younger (late first-century through early second-century). Pliny’s letters to both Emperor Trajan and Emperor Hadrian talk about how the Romans were to deal with the Christian movement, especially seeing that they refused to worship the gods of the Roman pantheon.

(5) Extra-biblical Jewish Testimonies about the Resurrection         

Additionally, it may surprise some to find that early Jewish rabbis included comments about Jesus in the Jewish Talmud, although their comments were not that flattering. Many referred to Jesus as a sorcerer (speaking to Jesus’s miracles), a deceiver (speaking of the resurrection), and a bastard (speaking to the Virgin Birth). Certainly, their portrayal of Jesus was not that kind.

Irritating Details

We now move on to the second letter of our RISEN acronym, which is the “I” that indicates irritating details of the resurrection that would be embarrassing for the early Christians to proclaim. For our present venture, these irritating details also speak to details surrounding the resurrection that skeptics may have a difficult time explaining.

(6) The Testimony of Women as the First Eyewitnesses      

Nearly every record of the resurrection begins with the testimony of women. Living in an egalitarian society as we do in the United States, many may look over this truth as inconsequential. However, that is far from the case. The testimony of women did not enjoy the same strength as a man’s in the first-century. Therefore, if a woman testified to seeing something as phenomenal as the resurrection, her report may not be taken seriously. Yet it was the faithful women of Jesus’s troupe that first saw Jesus risen from the dead and encounter the empty tomb. Even the disciples scoffed at this notion at first. The early church would simply not invent this detail if it were not true.

(7) Joseph of Arimathea Offering the Burial for Jesus         

Another embarrassing detail for the church was that they could not offer Jesus a proper burial. In fact, a member of the very Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, named Joseph of Arimathea, offered the family and friends of Jesus his newly cut tomb to inter the body of Jesus. According to the tradition of the day, families would leave a body wrapped in cloth for a year. After a year, the body decayed in the dry, arid climate of Israel. The family then took the cloth and poured the bones into a family burial box called an ossuary. The early church would not have shown and exposed Joseph of Arimathea as the caregiver of Jesus if it were not in fact true.

(8) The Testimony of the Resurrection Beginning in Jerusalem      

Skeptics like to infer that the resurrection is a later invention of the church. Yet another detail that is irritating for the skeptic is that the report of the resurrection flowed out of Jerusalem, Israel in AD 33. If a person did not believe the report of the empty tomb, all one had to do was to travel to the tomb and see for themselves. Jerusalem was ground zero for the resurrection event.

(9) The Fact That No One Expected a Resurrection Before the End of Time           

Another irritating detail for the skeptic is yet another detail that is often overlooked. Many skeptics posit that the early church presented Jesus as the risen Son of God to fulfill some preconceived expectation they had for the Messiah. However, data suggests that the early church would not have done such a thing because they never expected the Messiah to rise from the dead in the first place! The Pharisees’ and Essenes’ understanding of the resurrection was that the dead would rise at the end of time, not three days after the Messiah’s death. The messianic anticipation was that the Messiah would lead a revolt like Judas Maccabeus did to redeem the people from Roman rule and usher in the end of days. That did not happen. Their concept of resurrection did not match the resurrection of Jesus.

(10) The Understanding that a Man Hung on a Tree Was Accursed            .

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 states that anyone who is hung upon a tree is cursed. As such, Jewish believers would have scoffed at the idea that their hero would have been nailed to a tree. Seeing that they did not have an understanding of a resurrection in the here and now, the idea of a crucified Messiah makes no sense unless it was accompanied by a resurrection. Early followers of Jesus would have abandoned him as an accursed man unless they had reasons to believe that he had overcome death itself. The resurrection was the answer.

(11) The Crucifixion Nail       

Archaeologists discovered a portion of a heel bone that dated to a first-century crucified man named Yehohannon. Most interestingly, the heel bone contained a nail that was bent around a piece of olive wood. The nail is one of the first physical examples of the crucifixion. It also shows the brutality of the practice, which highly dismisses any idea that a person could have merely passed out on the cross and reawakened in a normal state after spending three days in a tomb. Additionally, another example of a crucified ankle was found a few years ago in northern Italy.

(12) The Nazareth Decree

Archaeologists also discovered another artifact of great interest to resurrection studies. It is a decree offered by the emperor. Scholars typically agree that it was decreed by Claudius between AD 41–54.[3] The decree states the following:

“It is my decision [concerning] graves and tombs—whoever has made them for the religious observances of parents, or children, or household members—that these remain undisturbed forever. But if anyone legally charges that another person has destroyed, or has in any manner extracted those who have been buried, or has moved with wicked intent those who have been buried to other places, committing a crime against them, or has moved sepulcher-sealing stones, against such a person, I order that a judicial tribunal be created, just as [is done] concerning the gods in human religious observances, even more so will it be obligatory to treat with honor those who have been entombed. You are absolutely not to allow anyone to move [those who have been entombed]. But if [someone does], I wish that [violator] to suffer capital punishment under the title of tomb-breaker.”

The decree reveals that the news of Jesus’s resurrection likely reached the ears of the emperor at least by the 40s. The decree was posted in Nazareth, Jesus’s hometown. Coincidence? I think not.

(13) The Ossuary of James    

The thirteenth defense isn’t as strong as others on this list, but it is still worth mentioning. A few years ago, archaeologists discovered an ossuary (i.e., a burial box) that contained the remains of a man named “James son of Joseph brother of Yeshua.” This “James” is identified as the brother of Jesus. The ossuary dates to the first-century, leading many to deduce that the ossuary contained the bones of James the brother of Jesus. While the ossuary of James does not necessarily prove the resurrection, it does show that the burial practices presented in the Gospels match those of the times. If the burial box is legitimate and is connected to the holy family, then it does show that James’s identity was tied to being a brother of Jesus just as James was identified in the biblical narratives.

(14) The Shroud of Turin       

Space will not allow us to give all the reasons to believe that the Shroud of Turin is legitimate. However, we can say that new data more strongly than ever suggests that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. For those who are unaware of the cloth, the Shroud of Turin is a herringbone cloth that contains a faint, hair-length image of a crucified man that matches the same kind of crucifixion that Jesus experienced. Recent data suggests that a similar image can be made if a cloth is exposed to high doses of X-ray radiation. For the image on the cloth to be made, it would require that a high dose of light radiation luminated from the body and that the body dematerialized, leading to the cloth collapsing on itself. These details match what one would expect with a resurrection event.

Stay tuned for part 2 in this series!

References:

[1] Brian G. Chilton, Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, 96–99.

[2] [Editor’s Note: While much of the scholarship community has moved away from “Q-theory”, it has had a lot of support over the last 150 years, with some supporters still today.]

[3] Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, 176.

Recommended Resources: 

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (mp4 Download)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth mp3 by Frank Turek

Early Evidence for the Resurrection by Dr. Gary Habermas (DVD), (Mp3) and (Mp4)

Cold Case Resurrection Set by J. Warner Wallace (books)   

 

Brian G. Chilton earned his Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University (with high distinction). He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian 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); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3RFTCOC

/by