apologetics Archives - Page 41 of 138

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Tweets Against Christianity

Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.

Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.

Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:

I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.

This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:

To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”

That’s a horrible move!

Discussing Premise (1)

Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.

Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.

Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.

Discussing Premise (2)

Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”

Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:

Galatians 5:19-21
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 13:14
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts.

Hebrews 12:1
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:22
abstain from every form of evil.

2 Corinthians 7:1
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

1 Peter 1:15-16
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

John 8:11
And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.

Discussing Premise (3)

Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”

I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.

Discussing Premise (4)

This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:

“We cannot live without sin.”

I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:

Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!

I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:

Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?

Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:

1 Corinthians 10:13

No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.

This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.

Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”

So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?

It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).

Discussing the Conclusion

In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:

Therefore, Christianity is probably true!

Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.

Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),

Dr. Tim Stratton

Where is the Real Mt. Sinai? | with Tim Mahoney

Podcast

Is there any evidence for the Exodus? Where is the real Mount Sinai? Our Bible maps and traditional Bible scholars think that the issue is settled, but does what they say match up with what we see?

Investigative filmmaker Timothy Mahoney has been searching for the true location of Mount Sinai for over 20 years. The Bible records that at Sinai, God made a covenant with Moses and the Israelites and gave them the Ten Commandments. While the majority of scholars continue to favor the traditional site of Jebel Musa (the mountain of Moses) in the southern Sinai Peninsula as the true location of Mount Sinai, many believe that the lack of evidence at that location gives us good reason to think again. In fact, some scholars question whether these events happened at all!

In this episode, Frank talks with Tim about his new film, ‘Patterns of Evidence: Journey to Mount Sinai: Part 1′ where Tim investigates three of the six most popular locations proposed for Mount Sinai in an effort to pinpoint the mountain’s true location. The film debuts in theaters this Monday and Tuesday (10/17-18) and is a truly interactive experience! Viewers are encouraged to put on their thinking caps and fill out their own scorecards to examine the “patterns of evidence” and come to their own conclusions on which mountain best fits the biblical criteria. You can find theater and ticket information on Tim’s website, PatternsOfEvidence.com.

Tim and Frank also discuss how the traditional location of Mt. Sinai was established, why finding the location of Midian is an important clue to finding the location of Mount Sinai, and why modern scholarship might be wary of finding the true location. Fascinating stuff!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, and catch the BONUS INTERVIEW with Tim Mahoney, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Tim’s website: https://patternsofevidence.com/
Movie + ticket information: https://bit.ly/3MEz7yI
Download scorecard: https://bit.ly/3g9yeSz

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

Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

Download Transcript

October 14, 2022/by Frank Turek

15 Mistakes We Make Judging God’s Morality – Part 1

Podcast

Is God nothing but a bully, a murderer, and a temperamental father? A quick scan of the Bible might alert us to some passages that on the surface seem a little unsettling. As a result, atheists and skeptics say that God is immoral because of some of the odd and disturbing things the Bible says. Some of these criticisms have even made their way into the church! So how do we respond to such accusations?

Join Frank as he begins to outline some of the false moral and theological assumptions we bring to the Bible as well as several mistakes we make when interpreting the Bible to help us see that the problem isn’t God, the problem is US!

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

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

Download Transcript

October 7, 2022/by Frank Turek

Archaeology and Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Deanna Huff

Upon entering the British Museum, the first display I encountered was the Assyrian section. The room was full of rocks voicing stories of the past. My breath was taken away as I realized I was standing in ancient history hearing the words of kings and their people.

The stones that surrounded me were the same stones that stood during the times of the kings of the Bible. Stones testify as memorials even in the ancient time period. Joshua was commanded,

Take twelve stones from here out of the midst of the Jordan, from the very place where the priests’ feet stood firmly and bring them over with you and lay them down in the place where you lodge tonight.…When your children ask in time to come, ‘What do those stones mean to you?’ Then you shall tell them that the waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark of the covenant of the Lord. When it passed over the Jordan, the waters of the Jordan were cut off. So, these stones shall be to the people of Israel a memorial forever. (Josh 4:3-7 ESV)

Archaeology – The Black Obelisk

The Assyrian Black Obelisk memorial dates from 825 BC and it was discovered in 1846 in Turkey. The relief sculpture attests the military achievements of King Shalmaneser III and his chief minister. These monuments inspired people with patriotism and unity for their society. The obelisk reveals kings of surrounding nations paying tribute to King Shalmaneser III in five scenes on five rows. Foreign kings are bowing down to King Shalmaneser III to indicate he is the ultimate king of the land.

The significance of the discovery for the biblical world is located on the second row of the obelisk. It identifies King Jehu (2 Kings 10:34) paying homage and presenting gifts to King Shalmaneser. This is the only contemporary carving of an Israelite king mentioned in the kings.

Apologetics – The Stones Provide Evidence

Archaeology like the Black Obelisk provides support for the reliability of the Old Testament. It offers a historical confirmation to the stories of the Scriptures. Dr. Price states, “archaeology aids in bringing the theological message of the Bible into a real world context where real faith is possible.”[1] Historical affirmations of the Bible can strengthen and enrich a person’s faith. Archaeology should not be overstated, at the same time it should not be understated.

The ancients left behind stones that speak truths of the past to the hearers of today. Discovering historical details of the ancients promotes accuracy of the biblical text. For example, “Excavations at Te Miqne uncovered an inscription that conclusively identified the site as biblical Ekron, a Philistine city mentioned in the Old Testament from the time of the conquest through the postexilic period.”[2] Other beneficial finds such as, the Merneptah Stele, the Rosetta Stone and the Sheba inscription confirm the world that interacted with the Bible.

Stones unearthed in archaeology today are sharing stories of the past and they are complimenting the historical accuracy of the Bible. Therefore, let us be awestruck when encountering the voices of the past as we walk through the halls of museums and use that knowledge to season our discussions with others to share the stories that matter for life.

Footnotes

[1] Randall Price, Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 27.

[2] Ibid.

10 Days in the Holy Land – Plus Q&A

Podcast

What’s one way to know we can trust the Bible? Take a trip to Israel! Frank just returned from his first trip to the Holy Land since 2018 and shares the amazing sites his group visited with famous archaeologist, Eli Shukron. These incredible historical sites that confirm the Bible is true include the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, Capernaum, Nazareth, Shechem, Jerusalem, and many others!

Frank also answers several questions from listeners, including those on obeying the Ten Commandments in modern times, the history of America as a Christian nation, the Bible vs. the Qur’an, the test of Adam and Eve, and why Christianity is always true regardless of your life circumstances.

Take a listen, and then check out some of Frank and Eli’s presentations from the trip on our YouTube playlist!

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

Download Transcript

September 30, 2022/by Frank Turek

How We Got Our Bible: The KJV Only Movement

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This final post will consider the short-comings of the King James (KJV) Only Movement.

Nothing New Under The Sun

In many respects, the KJV Only Movement is hardly novel. People have been propping up certain Bible translations since the time of Jesus.

One early translation that received this exalted status was the Septuagint (LXX). After the Jewish people went into exile, many remained outside of Israel, even after they were granted permission to return and rebuild. Over the course of centuries, the Jewish people no longer had a grasp on the Hebrew language. Therefore, to make the Old Testament accessible to more people, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew text into Greek. This translation happened sometime between the third and second centuries BC.

Legend has it that seventy-two scholars all translated the text independently. Yet when they convened to compare their translations, they discovered that they all created the exact same translation! It’s the stuff of legends. But the story stuck, and people revered it.

Therefore, when it came time for Jerome to create the Latin Vulgate, his friend St. Augustine scolded him for using the original Hebrew text and not the inspired LXX. Augustine complained that people had become so accustomed to the readings of the LXX, that Jerome’s text was causing too much controversy in places where the Hebrew did not agree with the Greek translation. In other words, tradition trumped accuracy.

Fast forward a thousand years, and Jerome’s Vulgate was now on the receiving end of being pushed out by a modern translation. The Greek scholar Erasmus created the first critical New Testament in 1516 and raised more than a few eye brows in the process. Fortunately for Erasmus, the Pope didn’t order his execution. Erasmus, after all, dedicated his new translation to Pope Leo X with the hopes of gaining his approval.

That said, many disliked Erasmus’ work because he “tampered” with God’s Word. Not only did he create a critical Greek New Testament, he used that Greek to update the Latin Bible! Erasmus’ desire to be as accurate to the original text as possible frustrated the churchmen because the original text differed from their beloved Latin Vulgate.

Now five hundred years later, those within the KJV Only Movement condemn others who prefer modern English translations for the same reasons that the church condemned Erasmus. Ironically, it was Erasmus’ text that was the base text for the King James Bible in 1611.

Not an Attack on the KJV Bible

Let me be clear. I am not attacking the King James Bible. I grew up using the KJV. The translation, as far as it goes, was a fine translation for a few hundred years. I believe that when people read the KJV, they are reading the Word of God.

Nor am I attacking those who prefer the KJV to other translations (though I think modern translations are superior).

Instead, this article critiques the position that the KJV translators were inspired, and that all other translations are corruptions of God’s Word.

The KJV Translators

It is my strong opinion, that if the KJV translators were alive today, they would reject the KJV Only Movement. None of the forty-seven Anglican scholars ever thought they were inspired by God as they created the translation. In the preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators defended their use of marginal notes when they wrote:

Doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? . . . Therefore, as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures. So diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yeah, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

Of course, none of the modern KJV Bibles retain the over 8,000 marginal notes from the original KJV 1611. But the translators felt it necessary to include these marginal notes because they were less than certain of their translation in several places. In fact, they explicitly state that they weren’t perfect translators! Read carefully their own words in the preface:

To those who point out the defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man.

And if anyone needs proof that the KJV translators weren’t inspired, the original 1611 version underwent about 100,000 updates and changes before the 1769 edition—the edition people use today.

The KJV translators also wanted to give the people a Bible that was both faithful to the text but also readable at the same time. They say elsewhere in the preface:

Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; . . . that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; . . . Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well without a bucket or something to draw with; . . . Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God’s book unto god’s people in a tongue which they can understand?

It was the goal of the KJV translators to give the people an understandable translation. Therefore, if they were alive today, they most certainly would encourage people to read a translation that doesn’t use words like “churl” (Isa 32:7), “cockatrice” (Isa 11:8), “sackbut” (Dan 3:5), or “crookbackt” (Lev 21:20). Those words made sense in 1611. In 2021, they’re gibberish.

The Greek Text

As previously mentioned, the KJV translators used Erasmus’ various editions of the Greek NT for their translation. Although, more technically, they relied heavily on William Tyndale’s English translation which they copied about 90% of the time.

That said, Erasmus’ Greek text was based on a handful (less than ten) of medieval texts. And none of these texts had the final section of Revelation. So Erasmus created his own Greek text for the ending of Revelation using the Latin text! Erasmus’ text has come to be known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and became the basis for the KJV.

Modern translations, however, make use of over 5,000 Greek NT manuscripts—many of which date to the second-fourth centuries. Modern scholars have access to P66 (2nd-3rd century text of John), P75 (2nd-3rd century text of Luke and John), P46 (2nd-3rd century text of Paul’s letters), Codex Sinaiticus (4th century complete NT), and Codex Vaticunus (4th century almost complete NT).

And Biblical scholars have discovered that while Erasmus’ text was quite good, his NT reflects later readings in several places that were not present in the earliest manuscripts.

Different Texts

Most modern Bibles are based off of the Nestle-Aland (NA) and the United Bible Societies (UBS). As mentioned previously, these critical texts are based off of thousands of Greek manuscripts—many of which date to the earliest centuries of the Christian Church. While there is strong uniformity between these texts and the TR, they diverge in several places. Allow me to share a few of them.

1 John 5:7¹

The KJV reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The ESV reads, “For there are three that testify.” KJV Only proponents believe the absence of this clear Trinitarian reference in modern translations is a weakness. The problem is that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” are most certainly not original to John.

When Erasmus made his Greek text in 1516, he left out this phrase which is now dubbed the “Johannine comma.” This omission upset many because the Latin Vulgate contained it. Again, people get upset when changes are made to their precious Bible translations. Erasmus left out the phrase because he couldn’t find it in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus took heat for trying to be as accurate as possible. He even promised that if he found it in a single Greek manuscript, he would include it in a later edition.

It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.

Mark 16:9-20²

Another significant change between the TR and the NA and UBS is the ending of Mark. Modern translations bracket this text and indicate that earliest manuscripts do not include this section.

Why do modern translations bracket the text? First, both Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus omit it. These are the earliest manuscripts we have on Mark. Furthermore, the long ending is missing from other early Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Georgian translations.

Additionally, several manuscripts which do include the long ending place an asterisk beside it, indicating its suspect nature. It’s also worth noting that some manuscripts contain a different ending altogether. And this condensed ending is sometimes added to the longer ending, creating an even longer ending than verses 9-20.

And if that’s not enough, some manuscripts only include verses 9-11 as an ending, leaving off verses 12-20. And one manuscript adds an entire paragraph to the long ending between verses 14 and 15.

Why do the manuscripts have so many different endings to Mark?

It seems as if early Christian scribes thought that Mark ended rather abruptly, especially compared to the other Gospels. Over time, different endings were added on to Mark’s original work. Only if Mark originally ended at verse 8 can one explain the existence of all the different endings. In other words, if Mark truly did include verses 9-20, one has a difficult time explaining how the other shorter endings made their way into the manuscript tradition.

John 7:53-8:11³

The woman caught in adultery was most likely not written by John. Early manuscripts such as P66, P75, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Sinaiticus each omit this story. Moreover, several early translations in Latin and Syriac omit the story as well. Some manuscripts which include it do with an asterisk demonstrating its questionable nature.

Another indicator that this text was not original is that while most manuscripts include the story following John 7:52, some manuscripts includes it after 7:36, others have it after 7:44, some have it at the end of the book after 21:25, and some put it in Luke’s Gospel!

Moreover, if these verses were removed from John’s Gospel, one would see that John 7:52 and John 8:12 fit together neatly. In other words, the story of the woman caught in adultery actually interrupts a larger story of Jesus in Jerusalem.

So how did this pericope make its way into the text? Probably, a scribe somewhere down the line included this story in the margins of the text and a later scribe thought the original scribe believed the story was part of the original text. While the story is most likely a true story about Jesus that was part of the oral tradition, it most definitely was not part of John’s Gospel.

Concluding Thoughts

Space permits me from looking at several other textual and linguistic issues (like the KJV saying that Jesus, instead of Joshua, failed to give people rest in Hebrews 4:8). That said, I believe I’ve provided enough evidence to refute the notion that the KJV translation is an inspired translation. It’s a fine translation. It was a great translation for its time. Modern translation, however, like the NIV, NASB, ESV, CSB, and NLT are based on a better Greek text and present the text in a more readable way

Footnotes

1. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 99-104.

2. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 316-320.

3. James White, The King James Only Controversy, 328-329.

Five Signs of Spiritual Maturity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Melissa Dougherty

We all want to be wise in our spiritual walk. We want to grow and make good choices that are right in the long run. We want to exhibit wisdom in all areas of life and be able to be an example for others. But I find it isn’t always the easy road that gets us there. In my experience, I have witnessed what I would consider very mature Christians who exhibit these qualities. I have also seen others who lack them. I want to share what I believe to be five signs of spiritual maturity. These are areas that I see that are scriptural and can be shown by how some Christians respond to certain situations.

1.) They base their reactions on Scripture and God’s character instead of their feelings and emotions.

The most spiritually mature people I know are usually the most emotionally mature. They base their choices on the wisdom of Scripture, and logic and exhibit fruits of the Spirit in their life, especially the “self-control” part. They take time to assess and evaluate situations and treat others how they want to be treated. They don’t deflect onto others their own issues and are aware of this in their interactions and judgments. They stop and think first before they act. They also tend to have a smart sense of humor and wit without degrading or putting down others. They’re an example of James 1:19, which says to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry. They draw from and submit to Scriptural values. This takes over instead of emotions and helps prevent poor decision-making and emotional outbursts. Do you know how there’s an intelligence IQ? Well, there’s also something called “emotional IQ,” and I find that spiritually mature people have a high emotional IQ. Costi Hinn once said, “It is a mark of your maturity and self-control when you can manage your emotions enough to understand someone you differ with.”

2.) They listen more and talk less.

I mentioned James 1:19 before. People living out this scripture tend to be more interested in the person they’re speaking to and don’t get into unnecessary arguments. They’re not easily offended, either. I read a post on social media once that said, “An immature Christian is hard to please and easy to offend.” Luke 6:45 says that a good person brings up good or bad things depending on what’s in their heart. Out of the heart, his mouth speaks. Controlling your mouth has a lot to do with what’s in your heart, especially on social media. Everyone is a hammer looking for a nail. But these people are different. They are the people that are trying to understand before they’re understood. They try to respond to people out of love for others rooted in a love for God. They consider the other person’s perspective, even if they disagree. But they’re not doormats to lousy theology, either. They can navigate and discern what topics to avoid and which to engage in and can have thoughtful discussions without arguing all the time. Proverbs 15:1 says a harsh answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. These people also look to others for spiritual advice and accountability, allowing others to point out their flaws.

3.) They have a sense of humility to them.

They don’t put themselves above others. I’ve learned from watching these people that they’re here to serve, and that’s what ministry is about for them. Not being known or noticed. (Even if they are well known!) They have a healthy sense of confidence, but typically these people look to others. They’re not always doing this to teach them things but instinctively know to ask questions, get to know others, and respect people as being made in the image of God, especially if they disagree with them. They don’t demonize and rebuke everyone and everything they disagree with. They display love as outlined in 1 Corinthians 13. They’re kind, patient, not boastful, lovers of truth, and seek after God’s glory, not their own. In my experience, these Christians don’t just boast that they “have discernment” or “are humble.” They show it. They don’t need praise from people. They do what they do to please God and God alone. They’re just not jerks about it. This is typically displayed in how they treat, talk to, and love others. When they make a bad decision, they have enough wit and humility to know they need to make things right and admit they were wrong. They don’t get super defensive and take steps to change if needed.

4.) They have self-awareness.

A spiritually mature person can read the room and has the insight to know how they sound to other people. They display a careful social balance in their interactions with people. They can hold themselves accountable in conversations and know when they need to step back from any situation and reassess their feelings. They realize they’re representing Jesus and that their actions and words have consequences. More than that, they have enough insight to know how their actions and words affect others. James 3 has a lot to say about controlling our tongue. He compares the tongue to a rudder that controls an entire ship. Verse 5 says the tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches. But a tiny spark can set a great forest on fire.” James 1:26 says, “If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless.”

5.) They have healthy boundaries and actual discernment.

Not every whim or feeling is seen as a sign from God or a move of the Holy Spirit, and don’t just take everything they think, feel or hear as the Holy Spirit speaking to them. They also don’t boast about how discerning they are. They just are. They model discernment instead of paranoia. They also don’t brag about how many spiritual experiences they’ve had, how intense they were, or how smart they are. They’re typically the people who enter a conversation thinking they can learn something from another person, even if they know a lot more than they do! That’s not the attitude they take. They also know when to say no and when to say yes. A spiritually mature person knows that “no” can be a very healthy word. They know how to honor God in their time and know their personal limits. They have enough sense to know when to engage in conversation, events, or activities and when they need to back off. In the same way, they also discern when they need to be where God wants them to be. They wait on God in prayer and Scripture reading instead of relying on feelings that change every day.

In short, they exemplify Galatians 5:22-23- “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things, there is no law.” And as well as Hebrews 3 in regards to holy living.

So by their fruit, you will recognize them.

Is Christianity good? Isn’t it anti-women and pro-slavery? | with Abdu Murray

Podcast

Is Christianity GOOD? Many people in our culture today seem to care less about whether or not Christianity is true, and more about the morality of what it teaches. They say the Bible promotes racism, slavery, sexism, and other forms of social injustice. But are any of those statements true?

In his new book, More Than a White Man’s Religion, speaker and global apologist Abdu Murray challenges the pervasive myth that Christianity is an oppressive Western religion and shows believers (and skeptics!) that the gospel message is actually THE SOURCE for the cherished Western ideals of racial and gender equality.

Frank and Abdu discuss women in the church, slavery, racism, and how the Bible passages cited by skeptics can only be understood properly when examined in their context (not in memes). When they are, we see that the Bible champions that ALL people are made in God’s Image, and the skeptic’s charges are false. Abdu also shares how his experience working with RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) impacted the content of his book and the importance of looking to Jesus as the (one and only) perfect example of how to treat others–especially when Christians fail to live up to our own ideals.

To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST and an EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW with Abdu about his journey out of Islam and into Christianity, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!

Get the book here: https://amzn.to/3x4eXHU

Abdu’s website: https://embracethetruth.org/

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

Download Transcript

September 23, 2022/by Frank Turek

The Historical Paul Vs. The Legendary Paul?

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Erik Manning

Skeptical critics argue that Luke wasn’t a traveling companion of Paul’s. Why do they say this? Let’s discuss one reason. NT scholar Uta Ranke-Heinemann asserts that in: “Acts and the epistles there are two Pauls. The historical Paul of the authentic epistles and the legendary Paul of Acts.” ¹

In other words, don’t confuse the colorful Paul of Acts with the actual Paul we read about in his letters. This indicates that Luke didn’t have firsthand knowledge of Paul. He must have lied about being his traveling companion and embellished a bunch of stories. But is the Paul of Acts that different from the Paul we read about in his letters? I’d say no. Not at all.

If anything, Acts showcases Luke’s talent as a reporter. When he portrays Paul’s personality, it’s clear that it’s the same as that in Paul’s epistles. Yet the similarities are subtle and indirect. They surface in an artless way. It’s doubtful this subtle consistency is the result of design or mere chance.

In her book Hidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrew points out a strong unity of personality in Paul’s character from Acts 20 and Paul’s letters.² This is his farewell address to the church leaders in Ephesus. In this speech we see both his genuine love and warm-heartedness. We also see his tendency to be a bit dramatic and emotionally manipulative. I don’t mean that as a slam. Whenever Paul puts on the pressure, it’s always for a good cause.

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

In saying goodbye to the elders at Miletus, Paul references his own trials and sorrows. He says he’ll never see the elders again, bringing them to tears. (Acts 20:25, 36–38) This is the same Paul who pressures Philemon to free the slave Onesimus by telling him that he “owes him his own life.” (Philemon 17–19). Paul also shows this tendency to guilt trip people in 1 Corinthians. There he goes on about his trials and afflictions. He reminds them that he’s their spiritual father. In other words, he gives them the disappointed dad treatment. (1 Cor 4:8–14).

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

Another trait of Paul’s is his tendency to defend his blamelessness about money. (Acts 20:33–35.) He seems almost touchy about it. In the middle of his tearful goodbye with the elders at Miletus, he brings up how he worked to pay his own way. Paul’s harps on this theme a lot in his epistles.

In both 1 Thessalonians 2:9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8 Paul emphasizes that he worked night and day. He says that didn’t want to be a financial burden to the Thessalonians when he was with them. In 1 Corinthians 4:12 Paul stresses that up to the time of writing he is working with his own hands to support himself. And in 1 Corinthians 9:7-18, Paul goes over the top in showing that he’s above reproach in these matters. He teaches that ministers of the gospel have a right to receive offerings. But then he says “I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.” (1 Cor. 9:16) He’s pouring the drama on thick. Paul also comes across very touchy about his apostleship in 2 Corinthians 11–12.

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

The Apostle Paul also tells the elders in Acts 20:29–32 that after his departure, false teachers will come. He tells them to resist them, remembering how he himself “admonished them with tears.” This is the same Paul we see in his letters who says that the “care of all the churches” comes upon him daily (2 Cor 11:28). It’s the same Paul who rebukes the Galatians for yielding to the pressures of the Judaizers. (Gal 4:16–20) He says that he’s “in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in them.” And he firmly warns the Philippians to “beware of dogs” when referring to false teachers. (Phil 3:2)

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

Furthermore, Paul is almost annoyingly uncompromising. In Acts 15:36-41 we see Paul getting into a heated discussion with Barnabas over Mark. Mark had deserted them in Pamphylia. Paul wasn’t about to bring him on another missionary journey. It didn’t matter how much Barnabas vouched for him. The two apostles ended up parting company because of Paul’s stubbornness. This is the same Paul who tells the Galatians that he had the cajones to publicly rebuke the Apostle Peter. He’s referring to the time when Peter would no longer eat with the Gentiles when the Jewish brethren from Jerusalem came to Antioch. Paul wasn’t putting up with Peter’s capitulation. (Galatians 2:11-15)

PAUL’S SARCASM

Paul was also one fiery and sarcastic guy. He can lay it on pretty thick at times. This snarkiness is worth quoting in some passages. Paul shows his exasperation over the Corinthians’ fixation with the so-called super apostles. He wrote: “You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or puts on airs or slaps you in the face. To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that!” (2 Corinthians 11:19-21)

Talk about getting punchy. But this is tame compared to what he writes to the Galatians. He wrote to tell them to not submit to the Judaizers who required circumcision for salvation. Paul was not happy that there were people perverting the Gospel and mixing the Law with grace. Paul writes: “As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Gal 5:4-12) Now that’s some razor sharp sarcasm. Lame pun intended.

We see this same mixture of anger and sarcasm from Paul in Acts, and it ties in to a striking external historical confirmation. In Acts 23:1-5, the Jews apprehend Paul and bring him before the Sanhedrin. Paul looks them in the eyes and says he’s served God and kept a good conscience. For this remark, he’s slapped on the mouth at the request of Ananias the high priest. Paul is furious. He says “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!”

In response, those who were standing by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?” Paul’s response is a bit strange. He says: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

This raises a natural question – why is it that Paul didn’t realize who the high priest was? Ananias was the son of Nebedinus.³ He was the high priest when Felix’s predecessor, Quadratus, was president of Syria. The historian Josephus reports that Quadratus bound Ananias and sent him to Rome. This was so that he could give an account to Claudius Caesar over some shady business⁴.

Agrippa interceded for Ananias, and so he was able to return to Jerusalem. But Ananias wasn’t restored to his former office of high priest. Jonathan succeeded Ananias. We know this because Josephus refers to Jonathan occupying the office of high priest during Felix’s reign. This implies an interruption in Ananias’ high priesthood.⁵ Josephus tells us that assassins killed Jonathan inside the temple.⁶

After Jonathan’s death, the office of the high priest remained unoccupied for some time. Eventually, King Agrippa appointed Ismael, the high priest⁷. The events in Acts 23 took place during this interval. Ananias was in Jerusalem and the office of the high priesthood remained vacant. So by his own authority, Ananias acted, assumed the role of the high priest. This explains Paul’s words in Acts 23:5: “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest.” This is another difficult detail that Luke gets correct. He doesn’t even take the time to explain the historical backstory in his account of this event. These sources interlock in a way that points to the truth of the narrative we find in Acts.

Some think that Paul is being sarcastic here when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest.” He is probably well aware that Ananias is not the high priest properly so-called. So when he says “I didn’t know he was the high priest”, the subtext is because he’s not. He’s a usurper. Paul is likely being snide here.

ONLY ONE PAUL

There’s more that could be said here, but I’ll stop for now. The bottom line is that the Paul we find in his uncontested letters is the same Paul we find in the Book of Acts. He’s the same warm-hearted, touchy, guilt-tripping, hot-headed, sarcastic and indefatigable Paul that we find in his letters. These parallels between Acts and Paul’s letters are unlikely to be the result of mere chance. And these correspondences regarding Paul’s character seem so casual and subtle that it’s unlikely they were designed that way. Through such indications, we see the texture of reality, the portrait, and the reportage.

The best explanation is that Luke knew Paul all too well, because he traveled with him. The biblical critics who say there are two Pauls are being their usual myopic selves. There’s only one Paul.

Footnotes

1. Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith

2. Lydia McGrew, Hidden in Plain View, Kindle Page 156

3. Josephus, Antiquities 20.5.3

4. Antiquities 20.6.2

5. Antiquities 20.8.5

6. Antiquities 20.8.5

7. Antiquities 20.8.8

The Balance of Law and Love

Theology and Christian Apologetics

by Tony Williams

Perhaps you, like me, have had the experience of being stopped by a police officer for a traffic offense such as speeding. I recall well the feeling of burning anger that the officer would dare to stop me, of all people, for barely going 17 miles per hour faster than the posted speed limit. How dare this officer not realize what a great person I am, not to mention how rotten everyone else is!

As he politely wrote me a ticket and told me that I needed to slow down, it was hard not to tell him to go find a real criminal and waste their time, instead of a good and handsome young man such as myself. Needless to say, I was naive to think I was sinless, and the handsome part was probably a stretch too. I was young, though.

Not too much later in life, I found myself in a police officer’s uniform, driving a police car, and stopping cars for doing the very same thing I did on that fateful day when I got a ticket. It wasn’t that my opinion of police in general was low, only police that would believe that I was doing something wrong.

While I immediately enjoyed the job, which included plenty of adventure and opportunities to see the world as it really is, I couldn’t help but feel guilty of hypocrisy when I stopped cars. On top of that, the State of Illinois instituted mandatory seatbelt laws when I was a very young officer. I had never, never worn a seatbelt unless I was on a roller coaster. Now I was supposed to enforce a law I didn’t obey. How could I do such a thing?

And then I handled a few crashes. Then, I handled some crashes with injuries and some crashes resulting in death. I handled more than a few crashes that ended in senseless deaths that were completely avoidable with seatbelts, and often with the combination of speed or other recklessness. It made me understand why we conduct enforcement of traffic laws. It made me understand why laws about speed and seatbelts exist; to save people from crashing, from injuries and from death itself.

When the theory became reality my understanding of law enforcement changed. I found that traffic laws, and all the other laws I swore to enforce, were eventually rooted in protecting people. No matter the law, if you traced it to its source, they all originated in protecting people.

For example, stores are good. When you need stuff you can go there and buy stuff. However, if there is nothing to stop people from stealing stuff from the store, or from robbing the owners of the stuff, how could an owner ever hope to establish a profit. You wouldn’t be able to provide stuff to people.

Without the stores, things get bad pretty quick. Jobs are lost. Deliveries of stuff from other places stop. We are back to foraging for our stuff, which is a pretty tricky thing in 2022. But with laws for retail theft and robbery in place, there is a negative consequence to stealing and robbing. Stores are able to provide stuff to people who need it thanks to the criminal laws that give us a mechanism to dissuade most people from stealing from, or robbing the stores.

As I became better acquainted with the relationship between laws and the relationship to protecting people, I found that my ability to interact with law breakers changed for the better. For example, when stopping a car for speeding or a seatbelt violation after some experiences with traffic crashes ending in serious injuries or death I could quickly explain to drivers not just what law they broke, but I could explain why the law existed in the first place. I could say that I had seen the crashes and injuries and death that come about when people are not obeying laws.

There was a particular street in my city where I would run radar that was a major foot traffic and crossing point for school children and people with disabilities. When I explained to angry or irritated drivers that we have people who aren’t as mentally or physically able to adjust to speeding cars, almost every driver I explained those issues to had a completely different reaction to the stop. Full disclosure, I almost never write tickets. I am a softy. But if I could explain the rationale of the law that led me to the traffic stop, people typically left the encounter less annoyed, and with at least the knowledge that this street is one they should slow down for. It didn’t always work, but I was always willing to write it down for people who had trouble understanding.

Looking back, and with the perspective of my Christian contemplation and study, I realize now that the laws of society need love and love needs the law. If we make traffic laws simply for the purpose of revenue generation by police, no citizen will be pleased. We should expect outrage over the way that these laws would negatively impact the very people who pay taxes for the enforcement of those laws. If there is no clear way that the law benefits society at the individual or corporate level, it is just a disguised tax.

On the other hand, if we just hope everyone drives safely, and we have no laws and no consequences to ensure it, what motive would anyone have to drive safely, other than self -preservation? And the problem with self-preservation and traffic laws is that roads are used for multiple vehicles at one time. You may be the safest driver ever, but if Lenny Leadfoot is late for work and texting about how drunk he is as he eats a burrito in a construction zone, it won’t help you at the four-way intersection that he doesn’t see. And beyond the initial tragedy, there is no redress of grievances for those crashed into by unsafe drivers.

The law without love is simply an instrument of oppression. Love without the law may feel good for a while, but eventually a whole lot of people get hurt.

As we look at how Jesus interacted with the Pharisees, who were the legal scholars of the day, it seems clear He believed they were bound for hell, and leading others to hell. I only say that because He literally said that in Matthew 23:13. (ESV) In fact, the entire chapter is one “Woe to you” after another. The Pharisees were experts at what the law was, but were apparently not experts at why the law was. And I say that with fear and trembling, as I continue to discover the love in laws, especially Biblical laws.

As far as love without the law, in His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear that He did not come to abolish the law:

¹⁷“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. ²⁰ For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:17-20 ESV)

It seems to me that, like the laws of science, the laws for man from God were devised to ensure his survival and his ability to thrive. Like the laws of physics and mass conspire to keep us from floating into space, or being squashed to the ground, good laws exist to protect man and allow for his survival and ability to thrive.

There must be some type of order because without order, disorder brings about only carnage and death. If I give you permission to do whatever you like to whoever you like because I say I love you, how does that work out for those you may choose to hurt? And if I say I love you so much that I allow you to injure yourself because you hate yourself, am I not agreeing with your inclination to hate yourself? This seems unloving to me.

The law, like gravity, seems inescapable. Love is not a certainty, but if laws are rooted in love, they will provide man the ability to survive and thrive. It seems to me the ministry of Christ was not to change the laws, but rather to bring the law and love back into balance. In dying for sin, on the cross, in our place, Jesus showed that the law must be accomplished, and yet He allowed our escape from the ultimate penalty of the law. We who recognize His motives no longer have the law as a master, but as a way to survive and thrive, not to mention glorify the One who created Heaven and Earth, and cares enough about us to provide a law, and a love that goes beyond our understanding.

Tag Archive for: apologetics

Discussing Premise (1)

Discussing Premise (2)

Discussing Premise (3)

Discussing Premise (4)

Discussing the Conclusion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Archaeology – The Black Obelisk

Apologetics – The Stones Provide Evidence

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Nothing New Under The Sun

Not an Attack on the KJV Bible

The KJV Translators

The Greek Text

Different Texts

1 John 5:71

Mark 16:9-202

John 7:53-8:113

Concluding Thoughts

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1.) They base their reactions on Scripture and God’s character instead of their feelings and emotions.

2.) They listen more and talk less.

3.) They have a sense of humility to them.

4.) They have self-awareness.

5.) They have healthy boundaries and actual discernment.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

PAUL THE ‘GUILT TRIPPER’

PAUL’S TOUCHINESS

PAUL’S CARE FOR THE CHURCHES

PAUL’S RIGIDNESS

PAUL’S SARCASM

ONLY ONE PAUL

Footnotes

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1 John 5:7¹

Mark 16:9-20²

John 7:53-8:11³