Tag Archive for: apologetics

13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating Of The Gospels

13 Good Historical Reasons For The Early Dating Of The Gospels

,

By Erik Manning

Skeptics like Bart Ehrman will use Apollonius of Tyana as a challenge to Jesus’ uniqueness. Apollonius lived in the first century. His birth was supernatural. He also performed miracles and appeared to people after his death. Sounds familiar, right? Critics will then conclude that the story of Jesus isn’t special.

Apologists will then retort that the Apollonius’ biography was written long after his death. It isn’t until about 100 years later that Philostratus wrote his biography. Therefore, the story we have about his life couldn’t be based on eyewitness testimony. But the Gospels are based on the accounts of witnesses.

And this is where critics will say “Oh really? The Gospels came long after Jesus’ death too!” For example, here’s Bart Ehrman:

“The very first surviving account of Jesus’ life was written thirty-five to forty years after his death. Our last canonical Gospel was written sixty to sixty-five years after his death. That’s obviously a lot of time.”

How Jesus Became God, pp 90

We know that Jesus died around 30-33 AD. But most contemporary scholars date Mark roughly around 70 AD. Matthew and Luke date to 80-90 AD. And John dates to 95-100 AD. We have this long chain of storytellers circulating stories about Jesus for decades. The tales grew in the telling. While the problem isn’t as bad as Philostratus’ bio of Apollonius, 40-75 years is a long enough time for legends to creep in.

The Main Reason Why Critics Give The Gospels A Later Date

So why do scholars date the gospels so late? There’s one big reason: Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. That happened in 70 AD. And we know predictive prophecy isn’t a real thing, so the Gospel authors must have put these words like these in Jesus’ mouth:

“…as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” (Mark 13:1-2)

“…when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, “Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.” (Luke 19:41-44)

Scholars call this ‘vaticinium ex eventu’. That means that the text is written so as to appear that the prophecy had taken place before the event, when in fact it was written after the events supposedly predicted.

Well, pardon me, Mr. Skeptic. It seems like your anti-supernatural bias is showing. While real examples of this exist in history, there are a few problems with this view in regard to the Olivet Discourse.

The Olivet Discourse Does Not = Late Dating

For starters, if the Gospels are late, why is there no emphasis on the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions? Luke actually does this in Acts. Here’s a noteworthy example:

“Now in these days, prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius).” (Acts 11:27-28)

It’s odd that Luke went out of his way to emphasize a prophecy by such an obscure figure. Why would Luke capitalize on that, but not highlight a fulfilled prophecy about the main character of his story?

Furthermore, several of Jesus’ warnings about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple make no sense if Jesus gave them after the event. This is true of all three synoptic gospels.

“But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains…Pray that it may not happen in winter.” (Mark 13:14, 18)

Matthew adds: “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.” (Mt. 24:10)

And Luke writes: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it...” (Luke 21:21)

The Romans destroyed the Temple in the Summer of 70 AD. It makes no sense for Luke to add a warning about not entering into Jerusalem if the city was already destroyed.

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, by David Roberts (1850).

The Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem, by David Roberts (1850).

It is also baffling why Matthew or Mark would add commands to pray about something that didn’t take place at the particular time that it happened. New Testament scholar Dale Allison writes “What would be the point of inserting an imperative to pray about a past event, that does not take place at a particular time?”

13 Good Historical For The Early Dating Of The Gospels:

What about early dating? Are there any arguments that are in favor of it? Yep, there sure are. There’s a lot of things that are conspicuous by their absence when we look at Acts.

Luke was the first church historian. And Acts is the sequel to his own gospel, which he says he was careful to interview eyewitnesses about. (Luke 1:1-4) There’s a lot of interesting details we find out about life and (hard) times of the early church.

We read about the martyrdom of James the brother of John. (See Acts 12:1-3) We find out about the martyrdom of Stephen. (See Acts 7:56-60) We hear about the early church persecution of Peter and Paul. We follow Peter in the first half of the book, and then we get up close with Paul in the last half of the book.

There are some big events that are missing from Acts that you’d expect to find from such a thorough storyteller like Luke. We’ll now look at 13 reasons why scholars — even some non-conservative ones — date the Gospels earlier.

1. The Death Of Paul

At the end of Acts, Paul is under house arrest in Malta while having his own healing revival. Paul’s execution was in 62-64. After being Paul’s biographer for a huge portion of the book, this seems like a huge event for Luke to fail to mention. Luke has been keenly interested in what is going to happen to Paul. It’s unlikely that he’d cut his book’s narrative off without telling what happened in Paul’s hearing if he were writing much later.

Adolf von Harnack was a prominent German NT scholar who changed his mind on the late dating of the Gospels and Acts. His turnabout came precisely because of the ending of Acts and that Paul is still in Rome alive and preaching. Says Harnack: “we are accordingly left with the result: that the concluding verses of the Acts of the Apostles, taken in conjunction with the absence of any reference in the book to the result of the trial of St. Paul and to his martyrdom, make it to the highest degree possible that the work was written at a time when St. Paul’s trial had not yet come to an end.”

The Beheading of Saint Paul by Enrique Simonet, 1887

The Beheading of Saint Paul by Enrique Simonet, 1887

2. The Death Of Peter

Luke was also up close with Peter in Acts, so it’s also weird that he doesn’t mention Peter’s martyrdom in 65 AD. Again, we see Stephen and James the son of Zebedee’s deaths. Yet he fails to mention the death of the towering figure who preached on Pentecost and was such a pivotal figure in his gospel? It doesn’t add up.

3. The Death Of James The Brother Of Jesus

James was a huge figure in the church of Jerusalem. He looms large in Acts. He’s also Jesus’ brother. We know from the Jewish historian Josephus that James’ martyrdom took place in 62 AD. Josephus thought it was a big enough deal to describe this event, and he was no Christian.

4. The Severe Persecutions Of Nero

Nero himself was probably to blame for a large fire that broke out in Rome. What’s an emperor to do when his capital city is in flames and it’s his own fault? Blame those weird Christians, of course.

This happened around 64 AD. We can read about it in some detail in Tacitus. It’s a strange thing for Luke not to mention this. Luke mentions the church’s persecution in other places, like Jerusalem, Phillipi, Ephesus and more places. Luke also at length discusses relief efforts for the impoverished saints in Jerusalem during a famine.

But he doesn’t mention one of the more gruesome persecutions of the time?

5. The Destruction Of The Temple And The Second Coming

This might be the most convincing proof of them all. The passages in Matthew that describe the destruction of Jerusalem and Jesus’ second coming seemingly leave no time between the two events. Reading Mark and Luke, the interval between the two events is brief. Skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Bart Ehrman have been quick to pounce on this as if Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.

I’m not here to give a theological explanation, although many have been offered throughout the centuries. The association of the destruction of Jerusalem with the return of Jesus wouldn’t exist if the composition of the Gospels was after the destruction of the Temple. Surely there would’ve been some explanation or indication that the two events were not to stand in so close juxtaposition.

6. Luke Was True To His Times

Luke has a lot to say about issues of the day that wouldn’t have been relevant after the destruction of Jerusalem. For instance, there was the brouhaha about how to deal with Gentiles now being members of the church. There’s also mention of the division between the Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews. These would not be relevant after Jerusalem’s destruction. Disputes like these are absent in the writings of early church fathers.

7. Paul Quotes Luke As Scripture

The letters to Timothy proceeded Paul’s death. Paul writes:

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” (1 Tim. 5:17–18)

Paul quotes Deuteronomy alongside Luke. This saying is in Luke 10:7. Scriptures refer to something written down, so this goes beyond oral tradition. This takes for granted that they had familiarity with what Scriptures Paul was talking about.

I understand some critics say Paul didn’t write 1 Timothy. But I’d humbly argue that they are incorrect in their assessment. The main reasons to reject Pauline authorship are thin, as I cover here.

8. Jesus Approves Of The Temple Tax

NT scholar Robert Gundry tells why this is so significant:

“The distinctive passage [of Matthew 17:24–27] teaches that Jewish Christians should not contribute to their fellow Jews’ rejection of the gospel by refusing to pay the Temple tax. This exhortation not only shows Matthew’s concern to win Jews. It specifically favors a date of writing before AD 70; for after the destruction of God’s temple in Jerusalem the Romans shifted the tax to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome (Josephus J.W. 7.6.6 §218; Dio Cassius 65.7; Suetonius Dom. 12), and m. Šeqal. 8.8 says that the laws concerning “the Shekel dues…apply only such time as the Temple stands...

Surely Matthew does not include this passage to support the upkeep of a pagan temple, for then the argument implies that the disciples are sons of the pagan god! Nor can we suppose that Matthew is urging Jewish Christians to support the school of pharisaical rabbis that formed in Jamnia yet during the aftermath of the Jewish rebellion, for he excoriates the Pharisees throughout his Gospel. The argument from 17:24–27 for an early date gains further cogency from the evidence that Matthew himself composed the passage.“

9. Swearing By The Temple

In Matthew 23:16-22, Jesus is excoriating the scribes and Pharisees. He says:

“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.“

This text makes as much sense as me talking to a Gen Z audience about slide projectors or phone booths. Unless the temple still stood, all of these practices would be antiquated.

10 Gift At The Altar 

In Matthew 5:23-24 we read “So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First, be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.”

It could be the case that Matthew was faithfully passing on a saying of Jesus, but it doesn’t make as much sense for Matthew to relay it for the very important reason that no one could obey it if the temple was no longer standing!

11. Jewish Persecution

If Matt 23:34 is reflecting current Jewish persecution of Christians by the synagogue, the verse implies an authority to punish that Jewish leaders did not likely have after the temple destruction.

12. Patristic Evidence

Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp. Polycarp was a student of John. Therefore Irenaeus was in a position to know about the composition of the Gospels. In his book Against Heresies, he writes: “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” (3.1)

That’s interesting. The internal evidence we have for the early dating of the Gospels now matches the external dating.

13. Who Was The Unnamed Disciple Who Was “Famous In The Gospel?”

2 Corinthians 8:18-19 speaks of a famous unnamed disciple that several church fathers (Origen, Jerome) and some commentators believe is referring to Luke.

“We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches and not only this, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work…”

The commentator Barnes observes

“…Luke was the companion and intimate friend of Paul and attended him in his travels. From Acts 16:10-11, where Luke uses the term “we,” it appears that he was with Paul when he first went into Macedonia, and from Acts 16:15 it is clear that he went with Paul to Philippi. From Acts 17:1, where Luke alters his style and uses the term “they,” it is evident that he did not accompany Paul and Silas when they went to Thessalonica, but either remained at Philippi or departed to some other place.

He did not join them again until they went to Troas on the way to Jerusalem; Acts 20:5. In what manner Luke spent the interval is not known…it seems probable that Luke is the person referred to by the phrase “whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches.” This would be more likely to be applied to one who had written a gospel, or a life of the Redeemer that had been extensively circulated, than to any other person.“

While this is admittedly speculative, it does make sense of Paul quoting Luke’s gospel.

The Gospels Were Written Early

NT scholar EP Sanders writes that “there is no material in Mark which must be dated after 70.” If that’s true of Mark, it’s true of Matthew and Luke as well. And if Acts was written before Paul’s death, that means the Gospel of Luke was written when Paul was still alive and kicking. We’ve seen that Paul quotes Luke as scripture. And history tells us Paul died in 62 AD.

There are also several indicators that Matthew’s Gospel was written before 70 AD as well. If both Gospel writers used Mark as a source, then Mark has to be dated even earlier than 62 AD. That means this alleged time-gap has been greatly shortened 40-60 years to 20-30 years. If Paul refers to Luke in 2 Corinthians, then his Gospel was being circulated before 55 AD.

Furthermore, if Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel as scripture, and Paul has met with Peter and James — who were living eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus — then it’s not difficult to imagine the other apostles were aware of the written Gospels as well. They could have policed and addressed necessary correctives if they were inaccurate, and they also could have been sources for the Gospels. We know that the church father Papias (125-130 AD) tells us that Mark’s Gospel was based on Peter’s preaching.

This doesn’t compare to the legend of Apollonius after all. They are close to the events.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

The Top Ten Reasons We Know the NT Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (Mp3)

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/31NPx0d

/by

Questions to ask my LGBTQ friends

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

A 14-year-old young lady wrote to Frank a question about reaching out to her bisexual friend.  How can she do that effectively?  This is a sensitive and emotional issue in our culture today, and many people are ready to pounce on you with several objections (and names) if you express the biblical view of sexuality.  Frank offers some advice and facts about the situation to help improve the chances that any outreach effort will yield light rather than heat.

Frank also responds to questions about:

  • The morality of marijuana use
  • How much is America sliding toward judgment like ancient Israel?
  • Atheist objections which assert that God is just a convenient answer to the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by
Is Hell Torment or Torture and Is there a Difference?

Is Hell Torment or Torture and Is there a Difference?

By Al Serrato

Making a case for Christianity can be challenging in this secular culture. And what can be more challenging than explaining –no, than defending – the existence of a place of eternal punishment? It’s easy to be placed on the defensive, with an aggressive challenger deriding how a good and loving God could be so vindictive or petty as to subject his children to eternal torture simply because they didn’t “believe” the right things.

But Jesus himself repeatedly spoke of Hell, so however difficult a conversation, it is one we cannot evade. Indeed, in some passages, Jesus likened Hell to the perpetual fires burning in the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, in the place called Gehenna. The Book of Revelation leaves us with the jarring image of the lake of burning fire, a place of perpetual torment.

Is the challenger, right? Is Hell, in fact, some arena of sadism in which a cruel and unloving God derives pleasure by inventing ways to torture his children? Or can we make sense of it, at least intellectually, if not emotionally?

The first step in assessing this issue is to tease out the underlying assumption that is at play. If God actively causes someone to burn eternally, if He inflicts agony upon the souls in Hell, then yes, we would have to concede that this would be torture.  The real issue, then, is whether God does those things to the souls in Hell, or whether those lost souls experience an everlasting torment that is a consequence – and not a separate goal – of the fact that they are in Hell.

An example may help place this in focus. In the Civil War, doctors treated most bullet wounds to an arm or leg by amputating the limb, no doubt an excruciating experience in the days before anesthetics.  But these actions were done not to torture the patient but to accomplish some good purpose – namely, to save him.  The patient no doubt felt tormented, but this was a natural consequence of the necessary action that was taken; it would not be fair to say the doctor had engaged in torture.  On the other hand, if one side had taken perfectly healthy prisoners of war and amputated a limb to inflict pain, either to coerce cooperation or as a method of terror, this would indeed be torture. Similarly, if a modern surgeon decided to amputate without anesthetics, it would be fair to characterize such actions as torture.

With this distinction in mind, we must next consider whether Hell serves a legitimate purpose. Christians contend that God is all good and that whatever He creates must also be good.  Hell is a place – or perhaps more precisely a state – of separation He has created for those deserving of such separation. And who is deserving of separation? Well, if we take God at His word, it is for those who die in rebellion against Him, who, through their thoughts and actions, have asked for that separation. This is intuitively understandable: a parent may seek separation from a rebellious child without wishing to inflict pain upon them. The judge who grants a restraining order, or who imprisons the offspring guilty of elder abuse, accomplishes a purpose that is in no way similar to inflicting torture.

Let’s take this analogy a step further. Imagine that the rebellious offspring insists on living in his parents’ home while refusing to follow any of the rules. Or commits a crime against his parents and is sentenced to prison? The prison sentence is meant to separate the abuser from society, and separating him in this fashion is indeed a form of punishment. But the punishment we speak of is, in essence, the incarceration, the very same act that accomplishes the separation. We do not first separate the wrongdoer from society and then inflict additional punishment; there are no medieval tortures that await the prisoner, no mistreatment that is deliberately inflicted to further the pain the inmate feels, no chain gang to make his daily life unbearable. In a very real sense, the punishment is the product of the incarceration, not an additional purpose.

Now let’s move to the final step. God does not inflict temporal separation or temporal punishment, as in the example of a prison sentence. He is an eternal being, and He made us for eternity as well. And when you grasp that distinction, you can begin to see that forcible separation from God is the absolute worst thing that can befall any soul. There is nothing more to be done, nothing that could increase the pain that such a soul would experience. By the same token, however, there is nothing to be done that would lessen that pain, short of the annihilation of that person. There is no way to make separation from the source of all that is good, more bearable.

Why is this so? Well, consider for a moment of what the pain of separation consists. Do you remember your first love? Or the way you felt when you beheld your first child? Or reuniting with your spouse after a period apart?  Conversely, can you recall the first time you felt lost and alone, or were homesick or the first time you experienced the death of a close loved one? Even for the most hardened of criminals, there are people to whom they are attached, with whom they wish to spend time, even if they are simply fellow inmates. These others have some quality, some attribute, which makes them attractive, makes them desired. That is why solitary confinement is such an extreme form of punishment. We were not meant for isolation; however, hardened and lost a person may appear.

Now magnify these feelings – not by a hundred, a thousand, or even a billion, but by infinity, and by eternity. Why should this be so? Because God is… perfection…absolute, unlimited, infinite perfection, the kind that we as human beings, cannot even begin to fathom.  Start to get the picture?  If the goodness and beauty of the people we love can cause us such torment when we face separation from them, and if that goodness is a mere shadow of the infinite perfection of God, that I shudder to imagine what knowing but not be able to experience God would be like.

Consider finally then the soul in the abyss, facing eternal separation and eternal alone-ness, isolated and embittered, aware of but forcibly separated from the God against whom his rebellion rages? What a human being feels on a limited and temporal basis, such a soul feels magnified an infinity of times. And he is not contemplating separation from a limited and flawed human being, but from the source of all life, all goodness, all joy. Can we even find words to describe what infinite emptiness feels like?

No, God does not actively torture souls in Hell. But he does not change His nature to suit those who shake their fist at Him, who reject the offer He is extending. The separation that He imposes, just though it is, is indeed terrifying.

But it is not torture. It is the nature of things.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Hell? The Truth about Eternity (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (Mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Short Answers to Long Questions (DVD) and (mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

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

/by
Richard Dawkins' Warnings Of A Godless Society

Richard Dawkins’ Warnings Of A Godless Society

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that the notorious atheist Richard Dawkins may be changing his tune regarding the necessity of belief in God in human society (click or tap text to see the article). I do recall hearing winds of this change a couple of years ago when he seemed to make a distinction between the religions of Islam (threatening) and Christianity (benign). It seems that Dawkins recognizes that without the belief that people will be held responsible to a higher power, those people who are in power (the State) will push society further and further into harmful and devastating behaviors, but he recognizes the dangers of certain theistic religions. Dawkins seems concerned that without the (false on his view) belief that the Christian God exists, then society will crumble, yet with the (also false on his view) belief that the Islamic god exists, then society will be destroyed. Dawkins seems to be now telling people to not be concerned with what is true, but be concerned with what is pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new and seems to have been the strategy of many States for quite some time. Allow me to explain.

Theism vs. The State

If God is the source of all moral duties and obligations, then the State can not be. Thus if a State wishes to legislate moral obligations (such as that people who offer a service are morally obligated to act against their moral conscience) or freedoms (such as pedophilia), then State must eradicate God from the conscience of those it governs. With God still in the cultural picture, there is an Authority to which the government is subject and is obligated to align laws with. However, if no God exists (or a State’s citizens do not recognize that God exists), then the State has no one and nothing to challenge its authority or the laws it legislates. Without any external source (God) for the citizens to hold the State accountable to, the State’s authority and legal commands will be understood as absolute.

Such a view is encouraged by the State through the promises of the legalization of many people’s sinful desires. Everything from autonomous sexual freedom to drug use is dangled in front of the populace to entice them to rid their worldview of a God that is a “party pooper.” For the State knows that with the eviction of God from the cultural mindset to allow people to explore their wildest and most debauched fantasies also goes the God that would place limitations on the State to control the masses.

No God, No Legitimate Reformations

While many atheists would have no problem with (even a belief in) God having no part in government (“separation of Church and State” and all), there are some serious consequences that some atheists (including Dawkins) have detected and are warning against. For instance, the reformer has nothing to appeal to in order to demand change in the government. Great reformers, such as those who challenged the government’s permitting the owning of slaves, would ironically be standing in the wrong and would have no objective grounding on which to stand against the government. In such a world, the State is a god; no one has any grounds to challenge it; it maintains absolute authority. If there is no external source for morality to hold the government accountable to, then no reformation should ever take place. If such a world truly existed (one without God), then Africans could still be enslaved in America today.

No God, No Legitimate Changes at All

If the State already legislates, executes, and adjudicates according to an individual atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong,” then things are okay with that particular atheist. However, if the State does not align with the atheist’s ideas of “right” and “wrong” 100%, it would be wrong (on the view that there is not God- that government is the absolute moral authority) for the atheist to attempt to change the State’s position on anything, for submitting to the absolute authority of the State is legally (not “morally” since morality is not objective on this view) obligatory. If the State is the absolute authority for how its citizens should act, then if the State is Christianized (or becomes a theocracy), then the atheist is legally obligated to act according to the laws and not attempt reform government. Again, to attempt to reform would be a violation of the legal obligation to submit to the absolute moral authority of the State.

Ironically, when a naturalist stands against the State today, they are in violation of this legal obligation. If the State were to criminalize abortion, the atheist would be legally obligated to comply. In a socialist country, the capitalist would be the criminal for standing against socialism, and in a capitalist country, the socialist would be the criminal for standing against capitalism.

A Godless Society

Yet Changes and Reformations Abound And More Are Attempted

This type of world is quite scary for both atheist and theist alike. Neither truly believes that the State is the ultimate authority of morality. This is evidenced by both sides’ reservation of the right to attempt to reform the State should a law be legislated that does not align with their idea of right or wrong. Ironically for the atheist (but consistent with the theist), God (as the objective standard of morality) must exist for the reservation of that right to be legitimately justified. I’m not saying that the atheist cannot exercise this right, but they have no foundation for it in their own worldview; they must borrow from the theistic worldview to justify any governmental change or reformation.

Politicians Are Already Steps Ahead of Us

We see almost daily how politicians throughout our government are working diligently to remove God from the culture. When they accomplish this, their citizens will have no choice but to submit and never attempt to change or reform the government.

This is nothing new. Politicians have been working at the grassroots level with our education system for decades. By trying to eradicate God, they not only take away any moral authority over the State, they also eliminate any ability to ground reasoning or to have knowledge. So, even if someone decided to challenge the State, they could never use reasoning or claim to have knowledge that the State’s position was objectively wrong. I go into more details of this in my post, “Is Education Overrated?“

An Even More Dangerous Game

With the destruction of reasoning and knowledge, we will see another devastating and logical implication of eliminating God- the destruction of the academy. Without knowledge even being possible, all knowledge disciplines are ultimately useless. If a would-be reformer were to use the knowledge disciplines to evidentially challenge the State, it would be pointless, for the reformer could not lay claim to having knowledge from any discipline. Further, without a grounding for logic, they could not even reason from the evidence to the guilt of the State and the need for change or reformation.

When I see politicians trying to remove God from America, I see them setting up their dictatorship in my back yard. This should not just concern theists, but it should (and does) concern atheists alike. We have to remember that there is no single “atheistic” ethic or belief, so the chances that the views of the one who is in charge aligning with that of any other atheist in this country are slim. Most atheists will desire reform, but they not only have a legal obligation not to challenge the State, they would not have any moral, evidential or logical grounds on which to do so.

Conclusion

With atheists such as Richard Dawkins now telling us that while theism is false, we cannot remove it from society, there is a great deal of irony and even absurdity. They recognize that atheism is not a livable worldview for society, and they recognize that in order to survive, we must believe something that is false (theism, on their view). If, in order to survive, we must believe what is false about the world we live in, then how can they claim that what they have come to believe, in order to survive, is true? If atheism is true, then knowledge is an absurd concept, and no one can claim to know anything true about our world, and worse off, we have reason to doubt everything that someone else tells us is true!
Ironically, Richard Dawkins, by his own recognition that God is not just a “useful fiction” but a “necessary fiction” for the very survival of society, has given us every reason to toss his entire life’s work (everything from his scientific research to his philosophy of atheism) into the garbage can! At this point, if Richard Dawkins wants to salvage any portion of his life’s work, he needs to recognize the existence of God (and not just any god but the Christian God) and do what he can to reconcile God’s existence with his work in biology and biochemistry (maybe recognize that nature appears and measures to be designed because it is designed); but his atheism is a failed hypothesis no matter which way he goes. Interestingly enough, Richard Dawkins is making the case against his own atheism using the immorality of modern culture. To understand this argument better, check out this video from Reasonable Faith and the links to books below:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Answering Stephen Hawking & Other Atheists MP3 and DVD by Dr. Frank Turek

Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)

Macro Evolution? I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be a Darwinist (DVD Set), (MP3 Set) and (mp4 Download Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

Defending Absolutes in a Relativistic World (Mp3) by Frank Turek

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book)

Defending Creation vs. Evolution (mp3) by  Richard Howe

Exposing Naturalistic Presuppositions of Evolution (mp3) by Phillip Johnson

Inroad into the Scientific Academic Community (mp3) by Phillip Johnson

 

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/371TNds

/by
The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

,

By Erik Manning

Skeptics accuse Christians of not paying attention while they’re reading their Bible. If they didn’t rush through their daily devotional, they’d catch some obvious contradictions. One of the more famous of these contradictions is the two accounts of the death of Judas. Here’s Biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman:

“The two reports give different accounts of how Judas died. However mysterious it may be to say he fell headlong and burst open, at least that is not “hanging” oneself. And they are flat out contradictory on two other points: who purchased the field (the priests, as per Matthew, or Judas, as per Acts?) and why the field was called the field of blood (because it was purchased with blood money, as Matthew says, or because Judas bled all over it, as Acts says?”

Jesus, Interrupted p. 53

Ouch. Both of these accounts can’t be reconciled. Or can they?

Reading the Texts

Let’s read the passages for ourselves. Here’s Matthew’s account:

“Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is blood money.” So, they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore, that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.” –Matthew 27:3-8

And here’s Luke’s version:

“Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” — Acts 1:18-19

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Noted New Testament Scholar I. Howard Marshall suggests the following solution:

  1. Judas hanged himself (Matthew.), but the rope broke, and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose).
  2. What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
  3. The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died. (Acts)

Now you might say that this scenario smacks of harmonization, but is it really all that implausible? Let’s think about it for a sec.

Dealing with Judas’ Death

Judging by the text, Matthew seems to focus on Judas’ suicide. Luke’s focus is on the final state of Judas’ body. According to Jewish laws and customs, the Jews would not have wanted to go near a dead body. (Numbers 19.11) This would be especially true when that dead body belonged to a traitor.

But how would someone who hanged himself have their guts burst out? This gruesome story doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Or does it? The Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology says:

“Between 3 and 7 days, ever-increasing pressure of the putrefying gases associated with colliquative changes in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abnormal parietes resulting in bursting open the abdomen and thorax.”

P. 91

So, we actually do have some medical data that fits with what we read in Matthew and Luke. Someone eventually cutting Judas’ corpse down, or the rope giving out, would explain how his body would have burst on the ground. Therefore, Matthew and Luke aren’t contradictory; they’re better viewed as complimentary. Each account ties up a loose end of the other.

There are also cliffs that overlook the valley of Hinnom. Those cliffs could very well be the place where Judas hanged himself, and his dead body fell. Falling against the rocks, this could explain why he fell facedown.

The Death of Judas

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests? 

Jewish law says that it was wrong for the priests to keep Judas’ blood money. (Numbers 35:31) Why then was it OK for them to buy a field with it? Luke’s story gives us a possible answer: it wasn’t. That’s why the priest bought the field in Judas’s name.

The priests were acting as intermediaries. Them purchasing the field in Judas’ name was as if Judas bought it himself. You might say this is special pleading, but we see this elsewhere throughout the Gospels. See for yourself:

  1. Matthew 27:59-60 “And Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.”

Did Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, bury Jesus himself? No, he had his servants do it.

  1. Mark 15:15“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”

Did Pilate, a Roman prefect, grab a whip and get himself bloody scourging Jesus by himself? Again, the answer is obviously no. He sent his soldiers to do it.

  1. John 4:1-2“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)”

Here John says that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John but then stops to clarify that Jesus didn’t himself baptize; it was the disciples. This type of “representation” speech is also found in the alleged contradiction of the healing of the Roman Centurion’s servant, which I wrote about here.

Plus, the priests had the motivation to do this. It avoids the paper trail that ties them to buying a field with blood money. This would have been a ritual impurity for all the public to have seen.

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

You might say this is all conjecture. But it’s impossible to avoid conjecture if you want to suggest what may have happened. But a classical historian wouldn’t see these discrepancies and be troubled by them. We have a strong historical tradition of the death of Jesus’ betrayer. And we have an event associated with a specific field named. These differences don’t undermine their historical value.

Notice also that each Gospel writer’s account is consistent with their profession. As a tax collector, Matthew is interested in legal and financial details that are involved with Judas’ death. He’s the only gospel writer that talks about the thirty pieces of silver. Luke’s a physician. He gives us more of an autopsy report.

These accounts aren’t hopelessly contradictory. In fact, they complement each other quite nicely.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace (Book)

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (MP3) and (DVD)

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

Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (DVD)

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2OuSZHA

/by
Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

Are Pro-Lifers Who Own Guns Hypocrites?

By Nathan Apodaca

Another assertion has become commonplace in discussions of abortion. Pro-lifers who own firearms, or support military actions abroad are misled at best, and at worst, hypocrites. The critic assumes that any inconsistently held pro-life beliefs are evidence pro-lifers aren’t actually motivated by a desire to protect human life, but rather a desire to control women’s liberty. This line of criticism lacks substance and misunderstands both the essential pro-life position as well as why people support gun rights or particular military actions.

Suppose for a moment it’s true that the vast majority of pro-lifers are hypocritical in how they hold their views on protecting life across various issues. Would that supposition invalidate the pro-life position as a whole? The essential pro-life argument is as follows:

  1. It is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings
  2. Elective Abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings
  3. Therefore, elective abortion is wrong.

If the premises are true (and there’s good reason to believe they are) and the conclusion logically follows, then the argument is sound. Would a subset of the pro-life community being hypocrites demonstrate that either premise is untrue? Of course not. Neither the wrongness of killing innocent human beings nor the nature of abortion and its victims are in any way impacted by whether some pro-life advocates behave inconsistently toward life in regards to the views they champion.

In fact, this is little more than a personal attack. It’s highly unlikely that if the moral consistency of particular pro-lifers changed overnight, these critics would then drop their support for abortion. It’s a smokescreen, an attempt to poison the well of the pro-life cause, not an actual rebuttal of the above argument.

Guns Protect Life

That being said, the claim that supporting gun rights or military service is inconsistent with the pro-life view is mistaken. As philosopher Tim Hsaio points out, self-defense is an extension of the right to life, intrinsic to all human beings. Since all human beings have the natural (intrinsic or God-given) right to life, then it is perfectly just for human beings to take steps to prevent themselves from being victimized by those with an evil intent. Writes Hsaio,

“Now since the purpose of a right is to protect my well-being, the possession of a right entitles me to protect that which I have a right to. Thus, if I possess the right to life, then I must also possess the corresponding right to secure or protect my life. I must, in other words, possess the right to self-defense. The right to self-defense follows immediately from the right to life—in fact, the right to self-defense is an integral part of the right to life itself. It is what gives substance to the right to life.”[1]

Remember, the reason abortion is wrong is because it intentionally kills an innocent human being. The vast majority of Americans who purchase firearms do not do so for the purpose of going out and intentionally killing innocent human beings, but for self-defense purposes or for protecting friends and family from those with wicked intentions.

What About Military Service?

Military action is a bit more complicated but still serves as a further extension of this principle. Being a service-member myself (Going on six years as a Cavalry Scout in the Army National Guard) I have received the question on numerous occasions, why do I oppose abortion if I am engaged in a line of work where my job is predicated upon the taking of human life?

The question ultimately relies on a confusion of moral principles. Remember, pro-lifers oppose elective abortion because it intentionally takes the life of innocent human beings. We could be mistaken in that claim, but that doesn’t necessarily make us inconsistent if we support or serve in the Armed Forces. It’s impossible to find a valid comparison between an ISIS fighter or a Nazi executioner and an unborn child. It’s not even worth pondering.

The ethics of warfare are complex and involve a great amount of moral ambiguity, but at their core are the same basic principles which underlie both the pro-life position and self-defense. Just as a toddler cannot adequately exercise the ability to defend their life or well-being, and therefore needs an adult (such as a parent) to fill this role, governments must protect the lives of citizens against immoral aggressors such as foreign states and terror groups. This is why we have police, intelligence services, and the military provided by civil government.

Debates over the ethics of contemporary military actions abroad usually come down to finer details about how to effectively engage enemy combatants and achieve victory with minimal loss of innocent life. While a military commander may foresee the loss of life on the battlefield, this in no way makes a conflict inherently immoral, provided steps are taken to mitigate the loss of life without compromising the overall mission. For instance, the introduction of laser-guided weaponry, thermal imaging, communications, and better surveillance/reconnaissance equipment has been a major boon towards limiting the risk to civilians(and friendly forces) caught in the crossfire of a battle.[2]

Even when an attack or war is being fought for justified reasons, the loss of innocent human life can sometimes be unavoidable. For instance, during the D-Day landings in Normandy, due to uncontrollable circumstances such as bad weather, enemy anti-aircraft fire, and other factors, Allied bombers often overshot their objectives and accidentally bombed civilian centers as well as Allied fighting positions.[3][4] While undoubtedly tragic, few would argue that the invasion would have been inherently unjust unless no civilian lives were lost. In war, a variety of unseen and unavoidable variables can pop-up in an instant and impact battlefield decision making. The advent of modern military technologies helps, but similar problems can still impact the battlespace resulting in tragedy. Communications errors, equipment failures, bad intelligence, and unethical behavior on the part of soldiers sometimes tragically lead to unintended results in conflict. Fatigue and cynicism can also play a role. Decision making on the battlefield changes within split seconds while still being guided by the commander’s intent, which is guided by an overall strategy and “big picture” mission of friendly forces. All of these safeguards can’t prevent the occasional unethical and immoral behavior (human beings aren’t basically good), which is why a clearly defined Rules of Engagement (ROE for shorthand) and Uniform Code of Military Justice are essential for a morally upright military. In the circumstances where soldiers behave unethically or even wickedly towards non-combatants, the military justice system corrects and punishes bad behavior, while promoting and honoring good behavior on the parts of service-members. Leaders should model good behavior and combat bad behavior within the ranks. As retired Marine Corps General James Mattis poignantly puts it, people should know that they have no better friend and no worse enemy “than a United States Marine.” The same is true for the rest of the Armed Services.

As Army Major Pete Hegseth points out, by and large, it has been the United States military (with help from countless invaluable allies worldwide), which has promoted stability, justice, and peace at home and abroad by serving as a sort of world sheriff.[5] Perfect, no, but until a better alternative presents itself, those who love justice shouldn’t feel ashamed for supporting the United States military. As the noted British historian Andrew Roberts argues, when the United States military is weak, wicked men like Adolf Hitler are able to make growing threats to the lives of millions of marginalized people; however, when the American military is strong, even oppressive superpowers like the Soviet Union are forced to tread carefully.[6]

The decision to engage in conflict must be guided by sound moral principles, which includes considering the possible unintended consequences of one’s decision. Good intentions alone are not good enough.

Conclusion 

In light of this, pro-lifers are not hypocritical to support either gun ownership or armed conflict provided both are guided by sound moral reasoning. Debates over both are a sign of healthy functioning social conscience.

However, the debate over abortion has nothing to do with what sort of human beings pro-lifers are; it has everything to do with whether the unborn are human, and will be granted recognition as fellow members of the human family. Debates over the Ethics of war, capital punishment, and gun ownership are ultimately irrelevant to the humanity of the unborn and the inhumanity of abortion.

Notes

[1] Hsiao, Tim “Natural Rights, Self-Defense, and the Right to Own Firearms,” The Public Discourse https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/10/42765/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guided_bomb

[3] United States Army, “Invasion of Normandy” https://history.army.mil/brochures/normandy/nor-pam.htm

[4] Beevor, Antony D-Day: The Battle for Normandy

[5] Maj. Hegseth, Peter “Who Should Win the Nobel Peace Prize?” PragerUniversity, Nov 11, 2019

[6] Roberts, Andrew “Why America’s Military Must Be Strong” PragerUniversity, May 26, 2014

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Legislating Morality (mp4 download),  (DVD Set), (MP3 Set), (PowerPoint download), and (PowerPoint CD) by Frank Turek

Legislating Morality: Is it Wise? Is it Legal? Is it Possible? by Frank Turek (Book)

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

The Apologetics of Abortion mp3 by J. Budziszewski 

Reaching Pro-Abortionists for Christ CD by Francis Beckwith

The Case for Christian Activism (MP3 Set), (DVD Set), and (mp4 Download Set) by Frank Turek 

 

Nathan Apodaca is a staff apologist for the Life Training Institute, equipping pro-life advocates to make the case for life. Also a contributing writer at The Millenial Review and CampusReform.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/36ZNbwi

/by

Cosmic Child Abuse? Answering Moral Objections to the Atonement

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

For two thousand years, Christians have understood the death of Jesus to be substitutionary—a sacrifice that paid for our sins. From the earliest creeds to the teaching of the New Testament to the writings of the Church Fathers to today, this has been a core belief of Christianity throughout its history. But in modern times, this idea is being repudiated as “Cosmic Child Abuse.” On today’s show, we are going to address these questions:

• What is the historic belief of the Christian church on atonement?
• Why does God have wrath and how can that be a good thing?
• Is penal substitutionary atonement a late invention of medieval Christians?
• If God required the sacrifice of his Son, doesn’t that make him a Divine child abuser?
• If I can just forgive people without a sacrifice, why can’t God?

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

/by

Life is Like Football

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

  • Is Christianity a crutch that just makes people feel better?
  • Is Christianity too binary? Too exclusive?
  • Does God want to condemn most of his beautiful creation to a fiery Hell?
  • What if Christianity doesn’t work for you? Doesn’t resonate with you?

Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers has left Christianity because he believes it is too exclusive, too binary, and that the Christian God wants to condemn most people to a fiery Hell.  Join Frank on Super Bowl weekend as he responds to Aaron’s characterization of Christianity and goes on to point out that all of reality (including football) is binary and that truth is exclusive.  In fact, Frank points out that life is a lot like football in at least seven ways.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
William Lane Craig Lectures on The Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus

William Lane Craig Lectures on The Evidence for The Resurrection of Jesus

,

By Wintery Knight

Here is Dr. William Lane Craig giving a long-form argument for the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus and taking questions from the audience.

The speaker’s introduction goes for 6 minutes, then Dr. Craig speaks for 35 minutes, then it’s a period of questions and answers with the audience. The total length is 93 minutes, so quite a long period of Q&A. The questions in the Q&A period are quite good.

Introduction:

  • Many people who are willing to accept God’s existence are not willing to accept the God of Christianity
  • Christians need to be ready to show that Jesus rose from the dead as a historical event
  • Private faith is fine for individuals, but when dealing with the public, you have to have evidence
  • When making the case, you cannot assume that your audience accepts the Bible as inerrant
  • You must use the New Testament like any other ancient historical document
  • Most historians, Christian and not, accept the minimal basic facts supporting the resurrection of Jesus

Fact #1: the burial of Jesus following his crucifixion

  • Fact #1 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
  • Fact #1 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
  • Fact #1 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it praises one of the Sanhedrin
  • Fact #1 is not opposed by any competing burial narratives

Fact #2: on the Sunday following his crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by some women

  • Fact #2 is supported by the early Passion narrative which was a source for Mark’s gospel
  • Fact #2 is implied by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
  • Fact #2 is simple and lacks legendary embellishment, which argues for an early dating
  • Fact #2 passes the criterion of embarrassment because it has female, not male, witnesses
  • Fact #2 passes the criterion of enemy attestation since it is reported by the Jewish leaders

Fact #3: Jesus appeared to various people in various circumstances after his death

  • Fact #3 is supported by the early creed found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 15)
  • Fact #3 is supported by multiple, independent reports of the events from all four gospels
  • Fact #3 explains other historical facts, like the conversion of Jesus’ skeptical brother James

Fact #4: the earliest Christians proclaimed their belief in the resurrection of Jesus

  • Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians continued to identify Jesus as the Messiah
  • Fact #4 explains why the earliest Christians were suddenly so unconcerned about being killed

Dr. Craig then asks which hypothesis explains all four of these facts. He surveys a number of naturalistic hypotheses, such as the hallucination theory or various conspiracy theories. All of these theories deny one or more of the minimal facts that have been established and accepted by the broad spectrum of historians. In order to reject the resurrection hypothesis, a skeptic would have to deny one of the four facts or propose an explanation that explains those facts better than the resurrection hypothesis.

I listened to the Q&A period while doing housekeeping, and I heard lots of good questions. Dr. Craig gives very long answers to the questions. One person asked why we should trust the claim that the Jewish leaders really did say that the disciples stole the body. Another one asked why we should take the resurrection as proof that Jesus was divine. Another asks about the earthquake in Matthew and whether it is intended to be historical or apocalyptic imagery. Dr. Craig is also asked about the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes, and how many of the minimal facts he accepts. Another questioner asked about the ascension.

If you are looking for a good book to read on this topic, the best introductory book on the resurrection is “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus,” and the best comprehensive book is “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? By Dr. Gary Habermas (book)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/36kqnqz

/by
Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

By Timothy Fox

With the release of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, the “Skywalker Saga” is officially complete (for better or worse), and we can now examine all nine episodes as a completed whole. (Spoilers ahead!) While all of the Star Wars movies carry similar themes, such as hope, the importance of family, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil, I think there is one concept that rises above the rest: redemption.

Quickly defined, redemption is the act of making up for one’s past wrongs. The greater the wrongs committed, the greater the necessary actions to atone for one’s past. Redemption usually (always?) involves some sort of sacrifice, and so sacrifice and redemption are closely linked. The two greatest examples of this in the Skywalker Saga involve Darth Vader and Kylo Ren:

Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker – Darth Vader is the shining example of redemption in the original Star Wars trilogy. In spite of the great evils that Vader has committed, his son, Luke Skywalker, believes that there is still good within his father and that Vader could be turned back to the Light. At the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke rejects the Emperor’s temptation and refuses to kill Vader, so the Emperor decides to kill Luke instead. Witnessing the suffering of his son, Vader rescues Luke, throwing the Emperor to his death (or so we think!). The injuries sustained by Vader are fatal, but he still has the opportunity to thank his son for not giving up on him. As a sign of Vader’s ultimate redemption, he appears as a Force Ghost at the end of the film as his unfallen self, Anakin Skywalker, alongside his – and his son’s – former teachers, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda.

Kylo Ren/Ben Solo – Kylo Ren’s redemption story was a major arc of the sequel trilogy. Like his grandfather, Darth Vader, Ren was guilty of many wrongdoings, his worst (especially to us fans!) being killing his father, Han Solo, in The Force Awakens. Ren believes this action would fully push him over to the Dark Side; instead, it brings him massive guilt and inner turmoil. He wants to embrace the darkness fully, but the light within him does not allow that. In The Rise of Skywalker, Rey mortally wounds him, but in an act of grace and mercy, she heals him. This – along with a vision of his dead father – brings Ben Solo back from the darkness to the light. Ben then travels to Exegol to help Rey defeat Palpatine (once and for all!). But his true act of redemption is when he gives his life to bring Rey back from the dead.

Our Redemption

In these cases of redemption within the Star Wars universe, we see how characters sacrifice themselves to atone for their past evil actions. But while Vader’s and Ren’s sacrifices complete their turns from darkness to the light, does that truly make up for all of the evils they committed? Probably not. And it is the same for us. There is no amount of good deeds that will erase our sins and make us right in God’s eyes. But that doesn’t mean there is no hope for us. As noted earlier, sacrifice and redemption are connected. But it is not our own sacrifices that redeem us:

“In [Jesus] we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph. 1:7).

Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross is what grants us redemption and forgiveness for all our sins – no matter how many or how terrible. Vader and Ren believed they were too far gone into the Dark Side of the Force, and yet they found their way back to the Light. Likewise, there is absolutely nothing that can separate us from God’s love (Rom. 8:38-39). But while none of our own actions can save us, we can be redeemed by Jesus’ sacrifice.

Turn and Live

As satisfying as it was to see Emperor Palpatine meet his demise at the end of Return of the Jedi, and then ultimately in The Rise of Skywalker, I was far more pleased to watch Vader and Ren turn from the darkness back to the light. God feels the same way about us:

“Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? Declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?” (Ezek. 18:23)

Many people may view God as an angry old man in the sky, waiting for us to mess up so he can smite us and condemn us to hell. But as we see from the verse above, this cannot be farther from the truth. God desires us to repent of our wrongdoing and to choose life. Like the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:11-32), God is waiting for us to return to him and will welcome us with open arms. He is desperate to save us from the darkness and bring us to the light:

“[The Father] has qualified you to share in the inheritance of his holy people in the kingdom of light. For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12-14, emphasis mine).

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity – Episode 14 Video DOWNLOAD by Frank Turek (DVD)

Is Original Sin Unfair? by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)

So the Next Generation will Know by J. Warner Wallace (Book and Participant’s Guide)

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

Is Original Sin Unfair? (DVD Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (MP3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek

What About Those Who Have Never Heard the Gospel? mp3 by Richard Howe 

Things that Cannot Negate the Truth of the Gospel CD by Alex McFarland

 

Timothy Fox has a passion to equip the church to engage the culture. He is a part-time math teacher, full-time husband, and father. He has an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Biola University as well as an M.A. in Adolescent Education of Mathematics and a B.S. in Computer Science, both from Stony Brook University. He lives on Long Island, NY, with his wife and two young children.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ro9SFU

/by