Tag Archive for: Christianity

6 Reasons Why Peter Is The Source Of Mark’s Gospel

,

By Erik Manning

Many of the early church fathers say that Mark’s Gospel is based on Peter’s preaching. If that’s the case, it’s understandable why an apostle like Matthew or someone like Luke would use Mark as a source. You can’t get much closer to the life of Jesus than through the eyes of Peter.

We’ve looked at what the early church fathers had to say about Mark before. However, skeptics like Bart Ehrman say that this whole idea that Mark based his Gospel on Peter’s preaching stems from Papias, and Papias doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

OK, so now what?

While I don’t think that argument works, what if I said there was a way to bypass this objection? Are there any internal clues in Mark’s Gospel that point to Peter being the source?

In this video, I look at six internal evidences that demonstrate that Peter is Mark’s main source.

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)
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 a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
 
Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Skw0LBH
/by

BIBLE STUDY: WAS THE RESURRECTION BODY OF JESUS SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL?

, , ,

By Wintery Knight

So, everyone from left to right accepts the early creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 being dated to 1-3 years after the death of Jesus, even atheists like Crossley, Ludemann, and Crossan. The thing is, some people are not sure that the appearances of Jesus to individuals, groups, and skeptics really were physical appearances. They say, “well, Paul’s appearance was non-physical, so the other ones must have been, too.”

Let’s take a look.

Here’s a paragraph from my friend Eric Chabot, from his blog Think Apologetics. He explains why Paul’s use of the word “resurrection” to describe what the other witnesses saw means bodily resurrection.

He writes:

If Paul did have a vision, then the term “vision” is vague and must be defined. As Licona points out, visions are either objective (i.e., something that is seen without the use of our natural senses) or subjective (i.e., a  product of our minds). The real problem is with the vision hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain Paul’s use of resurrection to explain what had happened to Jesus.  The two words are used for resurrection in the New Testament “anastasis” (rising up) and “egersis” (waking up), both imply a physical body. Furthermore, the use of the word “opethe” (the Greek word for appeared) shows the Gospel writers did believe that Jesus appeared physically. “There you will see (opethe) him” (Matt. 28:7); “The Lord has risen and has appeared (opethe) to Simon” (Luke 24:24). When they used “opethe” here, it means that He appeared physically to them.

So when Paul gives his list of appearances in 1 Cor. 15, the issues become whether the appearance to him is the same as it was to the disciples. There is no doubt the post-resurrection body of Jesus (after the ascension) had to be somewhat different than the body the disciples saw. Also, whenever the New Testament mentions the word body, in the context of referring to an individual human being, the Greek word “soma” always refers to a literal, physical body. Greek specialist Robert Gundry says “the consistent and exclusive use of soma for the physical body in anthropological contexts resists dematerialization of the resurrection, whether by idealism or by existentialism.” [9] Furthermore, in N.T. Wright’s  The Resurrection of the Son of God shows that the Greek word for the resurrection which is “anastasis” was used by ancient Jews, pagans, and Christians as bodily in nature.

Now, I think my view on this, and I’m not sure if Eric would correct me, is that Paul got an objective but the non-physical vision of Jesus. There was something there that everyone else could see and hear, in my view. But in my view, Paul’s “veridical” vision was post-ascension and so non-physical. Paul uses the word resurrection to describe what the other eyewitnesses saw (and he met them at least twice, according to Gal 1 and Gal 2), and that means physical resurrected body.

Eric Chabot writes this in another place:

Now, I said before in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul could have chosen to only use the word pneuma. He doesn’t. He does say “spiritual,” but he’s got an adjective there. He also says, soma, “body.” What did Paul mean?

Philippians Chapter 3. It’s a short chapter. There are 21 verses, but Paul says three things in one chapter that indicate he’s talking about a physical resurrection. In the opening verses he says, “I was a Hebrew of the Hebrews” and “as touching the law,” he says, “I was a Pharisee.” Now, it’s very well known that the Pharisee believed in a bodily resurrection. In fact, according to Acts 23, as Paul was being taken captive by the Romans to prevent his being killed, he shouted out to the group of people and said, “Why are you taking me? Because I believe in the resurrec­tion of the dead?” He meant a literal resurrection.

When the Pharisees heard that, they said there’s nothing wrong with this guy. But the Sadducees [who didn’t believe in the Resurrection] didn’t like it. So as a Pharisee, he’s agreeing with the Pharisees.

So, the first evidence is from Philippians 3. As a Pharisee, Paul believes in a physical resur­rection.

Secondly, in verse 11 he says, “That I may attain the resurrection of the dead.” Now, the normal Greek word for resurrection is anastasis, but in this passage, Philippians 3:11, he puts a prefix on there, ek anastasis. Ekanastasis, according to all Greek scholars that I know of, is translated in this passage: “The out resurrection from among the dead.” Paul said, “I want to attain the out resurrection.”

Now, to a Jew, “out resurrection” means “what goes down is what comes up.” You come out from death. And then just a few verses later, Philippians 3:20,21, he said, “From Heaven, we look for Jesus who will change our vile soma (body) to be like unto His glorious soma (or body),” when he should have said pneuma, according to this other view.

So he’s a Pharisee who believes in a physical resurrection. Ek anastasis—“resurrection from out among the dead ones.”

Thirdly, Paul says, “He Jesus will change my body to be like His body.”

So right there in Philippians 3 alone, I think the picture of Jesus being some wispy spirit that appeared to him on the road to Damascus doesn’t fit Paul’s own data.

Yes, that’s why Philippians is my favorite book. You can get so much useful theology out of it. Something about the resurrection in Phil 3, something about Jesus’ divinity in Phil 2, and loads of practical advice on stewardship, charity, fellowship, endurance and practical love for others throughout. Some of it takes a little digging, but that’s what commentaries are for, am I right? But I digress.

If you want to read something a little more challenging, I found a paper from the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) from their journal, where it talks more about soma and anastasis. If you want a bit of a challenge, download the PDF and read it. It’s by Kirk R. MacGregor, and the title is “1 Corinthians 15:3B–6A, 7 And The Bodily Resurrection Of Jesus.”

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek

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

/by

THE MARK OF THE BEAST: A BIBLICAL AND THEOLOGICAL APPROACH

,

By Brian Chilton

The world suffers from great turmoil and distress. People are distrustful of one another, and they certainly do not trust their governmental representatives. Unfortunately, conspiracy theories have taken center stage. What was once the discourse of backyard talk has now become talking points on Capitol Hill. Numerous people have asked my thoughts on the COVID-19 vaccines and whether the vaccine could represent the mark of the beast. Vaccines are not the only things postulated to be the mark of the beast. At one time, it was thought that the electronic numbers used by credit cards could represent the mark of the beast. Doing my part to emphasize rational discourse and valid hermeneutical practices, it is necessary to investigate the source behind the mark of the beast.

In full disclosure, this article affirms the futurist perspective of the book of Revelation. Futurists believe that much of the book of Revelation speaks to future prophetic events that will play out in the end-times. Preterists represent the opposing view, instead believing that most of Revelation speaks of events that occurred in the first century. Thus, presuming the futurist position, what can we learn about the mark of the beast? Before we engage the mark of the beast, we must first read what the book of Revelation says about the dubious mark.

With the text in hand, two questions need to be considered. First, what is the mark of the beast when kept in the proper context? Second, what can the other theological teachings of the Bible tell us about the mark of the beast?

What is the mark of the beast?

The mark of the beast is found in the larger context of Revelation 13 which deals with the second beast. It must be understood that the powers of darkness attempt to mimic God at every turn. God is Triune, existing as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the book of Revelation, Satan tries to copy this trait coming as a dragon (Satan), a beast (antichrist), and a false prophet. The beast of the sea in the early part of Revelation 13 most likely is the antichrist, a worldly political leader filled with the power of Satan. The antichrist is essentially Satan incarnate.

The beast of the earth is most likely the false prophet. The antichrist imitates Christ’s resurrection by suffering a perceived mortal wound and is healed from it (Rev. 13:13). People worship the beast because they think him to be godlike (Rev. 13:4). Remember, Satan wants to be God and desires people to worship him rather than God.

The second beast arises in Revelation 13:11. The second beast is a religious leader who is also known as the “false prophet” (Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). The false prophet appears to be gentle, represented by the “two horns like a lamb” (Rev. 13:11), but speaks and behaves viciously. The second beast deceives (Rev. 12:19) through signs and wonders, most likely faked, serving the lie of Satan (2 Thess. 2:9). Here is the critical point to consider: the false prophet leads people to erect an image paying homage to the first beast (the antichrist) so as to worship the first beast. Three things take center stage when identifying the mark of the beast.

The mark is a seal of worship to the unholy trinity. It is uncertain whether the mark is an actual mark or not. It could be. But no matter if it is a physical branding or not, it is undeniable that the mark is a seal of devotion to Satan, the antichrist, and the false prophet. In this case, Satan imitates the Father, the antichrist imitates the Son, and the false prophet imitates the Holy Spirit. Paying homage to an idol was not unique in John’s day as will be shown later in the article.

Is the mark a secretive thing? No! The mark is not something that one takes unaware. Whatever the mark is, it is taken as a cognizant and willing act of devotion to the unholy trinity. The mark will be public, and everyone will know it when it comes. A person taking the mark of the beast publicly identifies oneself with the antichrist much as a baptized believer is publicly identified with Christ.

What does 666 mean? The number hexakoioi hexekonta hex (666) is the numerical value of the antichrist’s name. Each letter in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic—the languages of the Bible—held numerical value. Arabic numbers had not been invented by this time. Thus, each word and name hold a numerical value in the biblical text. To calculate the numerical value for each word, the numbers for each letter were added. Jesus’s name equals the numerical value of 888. 8 is a number representing new beginnings and resurrection as it is one digit higher than the number of perfection—the number 7. The beast’s name is one digit below perfection—the number 6. Thus, 666 represents the name of the antichrist and his unholy nature. Ironically, the name Kaiser Nero equaled the value 666. John is telling his readers, who were knowledgeable of Nero’s horrific exploits against believers, that the future antichrist would be like Nero, but only worse and on a global scale.

How does this text merge with other theological teachings in the Bible?

Already, it has been noted how the mark of the beast finds its meaning in the context of Revelation 13. However, three additional theological teachings help to further understand the mark of the beast. When a text becomes difficult to interpret, it must be gauged against other major teachings in Scripture. Clear teachings clarify obscure texts. Additionally, biblical themes are repeated throughout the entirety of Scripture. As such, consider three important truths.

Mark of God. Not only is there a mark of the beast, but Scripture also mentions a mark of God. It is amazing that the next chapter is not read when examining the mark of the beast. In chapter 14, Jesus (aka., “The Lamb of God”) stands on Mount Zion with 144,000 of his children. The 144,000 are most likely Jewish believers saved during the horrible time of tribulation. Nonetheless, notice what is on the foreheads of the 144,000. They had “his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads” (Rev. 14:1). In Revelation 22, the new heaven and earth are occupied by those who have God’s name written on their foreheads. The text reads, “They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads” (Rev. 22:4). In the OT, believers were told to bind the Word of God on their foreheads and hands (Deut. 6:8). The Israelites took this command seriously as they created phylacteries that contained Scripture, placed Scriptural passages in these boxes, and bound them to their foreheads and wrists. But was this command intended to be taken literally or metaphorical?

God says that he will write his word on the hearts of his people (Heb. 8:10). This leads me to wonder whether the mark is a literal mark at all. Perhaps the mark is one’s identification or allegiance to someone or something. The person’s wholesale allegiance to a person or entity may be what the mark represented all along.

Unpardonable sin. When thinking about the mark, a very important teaching given by Jesus himself must be considered. When accused of performing miracles at the hand of Satan, Jesus first instructs his accusers that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand (Matt. 12:25–26). Jesus then notes, “Anyone who is not with me is against me, and anyone who does not gather with me scatters. Therefore, I tell you, people will be forgiven every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” (Matt. 12:31). The only sin that is unforgivable is the rejection of the Holy Spirit’s work in the life of Jesus. That is, the unpardonable sin is to reject Christ unto death. Whether the mark is a literal branding or an allegiance of the heart, the thing that makes the mark unforgivable is the rejection of Christ accompanying it. The mark is taken willingly and publicly whether it be for devotion to Christ or Satan. Even now, people bear a mark of Christ or a mark of the beast in their own lives depending on who rules their heart.

Comparison to the book of Daniel and John’s day. One last point needs to be made before wrapping up. This point is a historical one that bears upon the interpretation of the text. People of John’s day would have known what John had in mind when speaking of the mark of the beast. The Greco-Roman world was replete with idols of gods and goddesses. People were instructed to worship certain gods and goddesses in their region which differed according to the location and the god chosen to worship. The pantheon of manmade idols were thought to embody the gods they represented. Scripture notes that when people worshiped these idols, they actually worshiped demons (Deut. 32:16–17). Remember, Satan and his army desire the devotion that God deserves for themselves.

The book of Revelation finds many parallels to the OT. This may be an area that finds a root in the OT as well. In the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar set up a 90-foot-tall by 9-foot-wide idol and ordered everyone to worship the idol (Dan. 3:1–3). Whoever did not worship the idol was thrown into a furnace of fire (Dan. 3:6). Nebuchadnezzar’s command caused a problem for the devout Daniel, Hananiah (Shadrach), Mishael (Meshach), and Azariah (Abednego). Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah chose the flames of the furnace over worshiping a false god because they knew that only Yahweh deserved such praise. However, after being thrown into the furnace of fire, they were spared by a Fourth Man walking in the fire with them who appeared as a divine being (Dan. 3:25). With this backdrop in mind, the mark of the beast becomes ever more clear. The mark of the beast represents a person’s allegiance to the dragon (Satan), the beast of the sea (antichrist), and the beast of the earth (false prophet).

Conclusion

The mark of the beast is not so much about an actual mark as it is about one’s allegiance to the powers of darkness. Each person already bears a mark of some sort in one’s heart and life. Scripture indicates that the Holy Spirit is the seal of God upon the believer’s life (2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; Eph. 1:13–14; 4:30). Either a person is marked by God or marked by Satan. A person’s allegiance can change from the influence of Satan to God by the power of God working in them. But going back to the mark of the beast, people do not need to constantly worry about being deceived into taking a mark that will eliminate their chances of entering heaven. Vaccines and electronic devices do not represent what John had in mind when he recorded the revelation of God. He speaks of a person’s public denial of Christ and affirmation of a public, political leader who is directed and filled with the power of Satan. With this in mind, as Joshua challenged the Hebrews, we are challenged as well to “choose this day whom [we] will serve” (Josh. 24:15).

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (MP3 Set), (mp4 Download Set), and (DVD Set)

/by

CHRISTIANS SHAMING CHRISTIANS OVER VOTING FOR TRUMP: 3 STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS THAT NEED TO STOP

,

By Natasha Crain 

There’s been a sad fallout among Christians now that the election chaos has (mostly) come to an end and a new administration is taking over: Christians are shaming other Christians for having voted for Trump.

It’s one thing to say, “As a Christian, I didn’t support Trump because (fill in the blank with disagreements regarding his character or the party platform).” But it’s entirely another thing to mischaracterize why many Christians did vote for Trump and then attempt to make that into a shameful thing. Not only is that uncharitable between brothers and sisters in Christ, but it fuels the flames of the resentment non-believers have toward politically conservative Christians.

When a person mischaracterizes another’s position on something in order to attack it, that’s called a strawman fallacy. And there’s a lot of strawmanning going on right now.

Here are three big ones.

Strawman 1: If you voted for Trump, you did so because you want Christians to have political “power.”

Ed Stetzer, a dean and professor at Wheaton College, published an opinion piece in USA Today this week titled, “Evangelicals face a reckoning: Donald Trump and the future of our faith.” The subtitle is, “We must live up to our calling as evangelicals: to proclaim Jesus Christ to the world, rather than betray Him to sustain worldly power.”

The subtitle is simply puzzling—if a person voted for Trump, they weren’t living up to their calling as evangelicals because they were chasing after worldly power? This is a strawman, but to understand why, we need to understand what it means to be a secular country—and what it doesn’t.

The United States constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This so-called Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is what people commonly refer to as the principle of “separation of church and state” (though that term is nowhere in the Constitution). The Establishment Clause ensures that the government will not establish a state-supported church and will not force individuals to practice a particular religion. That’s a great thing! It’s freedom of religion. But that says nothing about how individuals should or shouldn’t use their religious beliefs to inform their participation in public life. Secular doesn’t mean we’re supposed to create some kind of neutral, value-free society and keep our worldviews to ourselves. That’s impossible. Every society necessarily makes judgments about what’s good and bad, and ultimately those are worldview questions.

Now, with that in mind, does that mean Christians want power when they vote a certain way? If by power, you mean that they want to advocate for the values that are consistent with their worldview, then the answer is yes, and that’s not a problem. That’s what one should expect to happen in a secular country, where the state isn’t enforcing the authority of a single religion. Everyone is free to vote according to their conscience. If Christians supposedly want “power” because they vote according to their worldview and values, then every single person voting could be accused of the same thing.

One has to wonder, then, what Stetzer has in mind when he cautions Christians not to “betray” Jesus to sustain worldly “power.” Whatever a person thinks of Trump personally, it should be obvious that many Christians (if not the vast majority) were not voting for him as some kind of godly individual, but rather for the platform he represents—particularly over and against the Democratic platform. To suggest that Christians who chose the Republican platform over the Democratic platform are somehow betraying Jesus by voting for someone in the interest of “power” is just outlandish. Conservative voters aren’t chasing power any more than liberal voters are. They’re just voting for the platform that best aligns with their values, even if the candidate representing that platform doesn’t always embody those values. (Does any candidate ever?)

Strawman 2: If you think your faith should inform your political views, you’re a “Christian Nationalist.”

This phrase (“Christian Nationalist”) is getting tossed around everywhere lately. According to an organization called “Christians Against Christian Nationalism,” the term refers to “a cultural framework that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civil life…it carries with it assumptions about nativism, white supremacy, authoritarianism, patriarchy, and militarism.” You can see an image from the organization below.

Let me just say I have literally never come across a Christian who would be considered a Christian Nationalist according to this description—and I follow a lot of online groups/social media communities with Christians all over the spectrum of belief. That’s not to say such people don’t exist (there are always extremists), but that they certainly don’t represent a large number of Christians.

Here’s the problem: People are slapping a strawman label of “Christian Nationalist” on anyone who voted for Trump. If a Christian Nationalist is someone who meets these criteria, then it’s ridiculous to say that all those voting conservative are “Nationalists.” However, I don’t think most people have a specific list such as this in mind when they use the term. They’re simply accusing Christians of mixing church and state because they voted for a platform according to their (Christian) values. To them, that’s “Christian Nationalism.” But, as I explained in the prior point, that shouldn’t even be seen as a problem! Again, it’s what’s expected in a secular country. We have freedom of religion—no state church—and can use that freedom to vote based on our conscience.

This point is closely related to the first point, but comes with a fancy label for extra shaming.

Strawman 3: If you’re concerned about the future of the country given the election results, you’re putting your faith in a person (Trump) rather than in Jesus.

I have seen numerous reminders on social media that we need to put our faith in Jesus, not a political savior. Sometimes these are meant as a simple encouragement, but a lot of times they come with the implication that those who are concerned about the direction of the country under Biden are putting their hope in politics instead of Jesus.

This is the ultimate strawman!

No one I know “worships” Trump or thinks that the President is some kind of replacement savior (not that that means such people don’t exist, but those who do certainly don’t represent the average Christian). People who voted for him may believe that his policies will place the country in a better direction than those of Biden, but that isn’t a confusion about where our hope comes from. When Christians talk about hope in a biblical sense, we’re talking about the hope of eternal life. We may additionally have political hopes for our country’s direction, based on our worldview, but these are completely different kinds of hope. A person can have the hope of eternal life, the hope of a certain direction of the country, and deep concern about an election outcome all at the same time.

Christians are on the receiving end of all kinds of mischaracterizations by non-believers. When we strawman each other, we only add to those misunderstandings. Moving forward isn’t about how we fix our “reputation” for having voted for Trump (as some Christians seem to be concerned about); non-believers will never like our values, no matter who we vote for. It’s about having nuanced and charitable conversations about the best way to live out our faith in the public square…while accurately understanding and responding to one another’s views. Strawmen are easy to blow down, but the damage is hard to fix.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

American Apocalypse MP3, and DVD by Frank Turek

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

Economics, Environment, Political Culture CD by Kerby Anderson don’t promote

Government Ethics CD by Kerby Anderson don’t promote

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

You Can’t NOT Legislate Morality mp3 by Frank Turek

Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace

 

 

/by

Four Ways We Can Revolt Against Big Tech

,

By Bob Perry

Big Tech is hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview. As such, it is a threat to the free exchange of ideas, religious liberty, and our ability to practice and talk about our faith publicly. For those reasons, I’ve made the case that Christians should lead the revolt against Big Tech. But how can we do that? Politics is important but it is not the final answer. I’ll explain why. And then I’ll offer you four ways to help start a revolt against Big Tech.

A Word on Politics

Before I go further with this, I want to address the idea of Christians being involved in politics. Some believe that Christians shouldn’t have anything to do with politics. But I think that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Christians have an obligation to be involved in politics. Politics is where worldviews collide. And we are responsible to advocate for Christian ethics and actions in the public square. Politicians make laws. Laws protect and defend moral positions. If we don’t stand up for our moral positions, we will have to live with someone else’s.

We absolutely should be involved in politics. Always.

Politics Won’t Solve The Problem(s)

That said, the people who recognize the issues I’m addressing here are mostly seeking political solutions to the problem. There is talk of removing Rule 230 from the 1996 Communications Decency Act. That law — itself part of a broader telecom law — provides a legal “safe harbor” to protect internet companies from being sued for libel. The idea for Rule 230 was to promote the free exchange of ideas on the internet. It was meant to ensure that platforms like Facebook and Twitter (that just provide a forum) are not held accountable as editors (who determine what can or cannot be published). The idea was to promote free speech and diversity of opinions.

We see how that’s worked out. Facebook and Twitter do act like editors. They determine which views can be published. But they’re protected anyway.

Others are talking about breaking up the Big Tech monopolies. Monopolies have too much power, so that seems reasonable. But the problem with Big Tech is not that it has constructed monopolies. The problem is intellectual conformity and intolerance for diverse points of view. Big Tech is hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview and to its values. Making big companies that are hostile to our ideas … into little companies that are hostile to our ideas doesn’t solve anything in the end.

The Essence of the Revolt

Removing Big Tech’s protective shield and breaking up the behemoths are both good things to do. The problem is that political solutions treat the symptoms, not the disease. And we don’t have time to wait for politicians anyway. They’re not reliable. And they’re mostly ineffective. Big Tech is not. Besides that, about half the politicians in this country share Big Tech’s ideological point of view. And that’s the problem that needs to be addressed.

So, I’d like to offer four suggestions. First, two things that all of us can start doing tomorrow. Then, two things that few of us can do, but all of us can encourage and support.

1. Train People to Think Critically

This is the most important thing of all. It isn’t emphasized in our schools. And it rarely happens in our churches. It’s difficult and time-consuming. You have to read things that may be a little over your head. And you have to be willing to challenge yourself and others to get better at it. Iron sharpens iron, after all.

People who think critically can spot errors in logic and call it out. They are comfortable at speaking out in defense of truth, goodness, and beauty as being objective features of the world we live in. The ability to do just that one thing will begin to upend everything that makes this culture the amoral, relativistic morass it has become.

Christians (in general) are notoriously bad at critical thinking. We need to change that. You need to change that. And you can start by taking on this simple book: Thinking About God: First Steps in Philosophy, by Gregory Ganssle. Don’t be scared off because the title has the word “philosophy” in it. Philosophy is just two Greek words crammed together: philo (love) + sophia (wisdom). Philosophy is the love of wisdom. Every Christian should embrace it.

There are countless other books, websites, and parachurch organizations that can help you in this endeavor. I talk about them on this site all the time.

Stay tuned.

2. Use Alternatives

Remember that the fuel for Big Tech behemoths is the revenue they generate by exploiting the personal data you freely give them. They use that data along with your social media interactions, internet searches, and browsing history to sell your information to companies that want it. It’s very simple:

You are the product

Knowing that tells you all you need to know about how to undermine Big Tech.

Quit selling yourself. Stop fueling the Big Tech Engine that is trying to squash you.

GOOGLE

As you can see, Google (which also owns YouTube) accounts for more than 90% of the market share for internet searches. When you type in a search, Google collects, curates, and sells information about your search and browsing history to advertisers.

So, here’s the complicated plan: Stop using Google, its Chrome browser, YouTube, and Gmail. The level of surveillance and data collection you allow them about your personal habits and interests is staggering. Every account or website login. Every message you send or receive. You will never be able to imagine how deeply embedded Google is in your life until you try to disentangle yourself from it all.

But there are plenty of other options.

Browsers: The Brave web browser is three times faster than Chrome and more secure. It doesn’t collect your private data or sell it to third parties. And it uses 35% less battery on mobile.

Search Engine: Qwant and Duck-Duck-Go are powerful search engines that don’t save your IP address, don’t save your search results, and don’t sell your private data. They just search.

Email: Do your own research but I have found Proton Mail and Tutanota to get consistently good reviews. Each offers a free version. Getting more features may cost you $3-$5/month. But remember the big difference. This makes them the product, not you.

If enough of us changed just these three things it would have a significant financial impact on Big Tech’s most notorious culprit, Google.

SOCIAL MEDIA

I’m not going to enter the “you-should-disconnect-from-social-media” debate. There are plenty of fantastic practical, ethical, and psychological reasons to do that. Even those who were instrumental in creating social media giants agree to that. They won’t let their own children have accounts on the platforms they created!

But I’m not here to virtue signal. And I’m not here to convince you that that’s what you should do. My goal is to do my little part to defund Big Tech. So, if you don’t think deleting your social media accounts is realistic, at least move them away from the monopolistic thought police.

The fact is there are alternatives to Facebook (MeWe), Twitter (Parler), YouTube (Rumble), and Instagram (VSCO) that will allow you to continue to participate in online “communities,” share things with one another, and interact much the same as you do now. The key is that using these alternatives takes the product (you) away from the Big Tech overlords. And the revenue you generate goes with it. These alternate platforms don’t collect or sell your data. They just provide a place to interact.

Most of them are still in their infancy. They don’t have as many features as the Big Guys. And right now, they are mostly populated by ideologues from the opposite point of view of their predecessors. But, as more and more of us abandon Big Tech, those alternatives will become more robust, diverse, and enjoyable. My point about the revolt against Big Tech is simply that we begin to strip it of its power. And this is a way to start doing that.

3. Build Big Tech Alternatives

If you have the knowledge, skill, and means to create Big Tech alternatives, please get to work. As Peter Rex points out, we need tech companies that are far removed from the Big Tech centers of Silicon Valley and Seattle. But, more importantly, we need them further removed from the toxic, self-perpetuating, Big Tech ideology that is threatening to crush free thought.

Big Tech has become quite good at mastering people. We need alternatives that serve people.

The beauty in this is that there is a huge market for creating alternative tech companies. And it is ripe to be tapped. Offering people an ethically superior alternative to the Big Tech masters of the culture could prove to be extremely lucrative.

4. Invest in Free-Thinking

The great majority of us aren’t tech wizards. We can’t build Big Tech alternatives. But we certainly can support those who do. This includes investing in technology entrepreneurs and supporting companies that are creating new ways to compete with the behemoths. The simple act of changing your internet browsing and social media platforms are examples. But if you have the means to actually invest in competitors to these Big Tech companies, please do.

It also includes supporting private high schools and independent universities that refuse to play along with the politically correct mandates of the cultural thought police. I would say this is just as important as donating to your local church. The ramifications of not doing so are too menacing to ignore.

By this, I do not mean to say that we have to create and support Christian companies or schools. Honestly, I don’t even know what would make a company “Christian.” But we can certainly seek to support those that are not hostile to the Judeo-Christian worldview like Big Tech is today.

A Win-Win Example

In 2014, Mozilla (the company that produced the Firefox web browser) forced Brendon Eich out of the company he founded. Why? Because six years earlier he had made a small donation to a campaign to oppose the Proposition 8 same-sex “marriage” initiative in California. Eich never talked about it or pushed his views at work. He never publicly addressed the issue. In fact, no one he worked with knew anything about his views until public records exposed his contribution to oppose Proposition 8 in 2014.

Brendan Eich is reportedly a politically middle-of-the-road Catholic. But he held the wrong view on same-sex “marriage.” So, he had to be destroyed. This is exactly the kind of thing I’m talking about. Rod Dreher calls it “soft totalitarianism.” And it is our collective future if Big Tech is allowed to continue down the path it has chosen. But here’s why I bring it up.

Brendan Eich didn’t just curl up in a ball and surrender. When he was forced out of Mozilla, he gathered investors to start a new company. There, he developed the Brave web browser I mentioned earlier. His story embodies everything I’ve been talking about. The platform is private and ideologically neutral. Using it supports a guy who created an alternative to the Big Tech default technology and ideology. Win-win.

Don’t Lose Sight Of The Purpose

I started this two-post blog series with a video of Peter Rex at Hillsdale College. Rex is a billionaire and tech entrepreneur. You and I are not. Hillsdale College is one of the very few institutes of higher learning in this country that still believes in and encourages free inquiry. You’ve probably never heard of it. But these are the kinds of people and organizations we need more of. If the hundreds of millions of faithful people in this country are willing to follow and support people like Peter Rex and places like Hillsdale College, we can start a revolt against Big Tech. And we can change the culture.

We certainly owe it to our kids and grandkids to try.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)

Fearless Generation – Complete DVD Series, Complete mp4 Series (download) by Mike Adams, Frank Turek, and J. Warner Wallace

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

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

 

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and an M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/sjWPbCC  

/by

How To Have A Challenging Conversation With Someone You Love

By Jason Jiménez

Let’s be honest. No one looks forward to having a challenging conversation with a friend or family member. The very thought of saying something that might hurt their feelings sends quivers down your spine. And so rather than confront the problem, you keep avoiding the talk and land up tossing it aside with the other unresolved issues.

But ask yourself, is avoiding hard conversations with a loved one improving or damaging my relationships?

As a Christian, it’s not wise to suppress your feelings or avoid expressing how you feel about something with someone you love, especially if there’s a problem hindering your relationship. A genuine relationship is one built on openness and honesty.

So, whatever the challenge or difficulty you are having with a loved one, here are five priorities to follow that will motivate you to have that uncomfortable conversation.

Priority One – Pray Before The Difficult Talk

You might be thinking the first priority seems a bit obvious. And you’re right. Prayer is evident because it’s essential. Yet, so many Christians skip over prayer and dive right into whatever is bothering them. However, the Bible states very clearly, “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4:6). When you and your friend (or family member) come together to talk about some sensitive matters, praying together will help settle the nerves and transfer the focus to the Lord. It’s also important to express your gratitude for one another and ask God to give wisdom and understanding to work things out.

Priority Two – Converse, Not Lecture

When someone wrongs you, the natural thing to do is attack the person who hurt you. But, according to 1 Peter 3:8, you are to “have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind” as a Christian. Therefore, the last thing you want to do (no matter how innocent you feel you are) is to take an accusatory tone with your friend. Your approach is to honor them as a person made in God’s image—not disparage them if they don’t conform to your point of view. Your starting position isn’t “I’m going to set you straight for hurting me.” It should be, “I want to understand why you did what you did because I love you.”

Priority Three – Show Respect

As human beings, we crave respect. A good technique when engaging in a challenging conversation is to focus on honoring the other person above yourself. When you “show proper respect” (1 Pet. 2:17) to someone, it not only acts as a diffuser but will also invite the other person to address you with respect. Think of it this way, honoring one another leads to respectful dialogue.

Priority Four – Be Open And Honest

It follows that if you properly employ the first three priorities, the fourth one will likely fall into place. However, there are so many terrifying prospects that can hinder vulnerability: insecurities, failures, fear of rejection, and issues of trust. Yet, both of you have to be willing to express real emotion and a willingness to work things out for the two of you to make any progress. This will take time, so make sure you don’t rush or fake it.

Priority Five – Ask For Forgiveness

Jesus tells his followers, “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” (Matt. 5:23-24). The word “reconciled” conveys an immediate response to make peace with the offended person. Instead of making excuses for your actions, it’s always best to take responsibility for any wrongdoing and quickly resolve matters before they get out of hand.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl (Book)

Fearless Faith by Mike Adams, Frank Turek and J. Warner Wallace (Complete DVD Series)

Jason Jimenez is the founder of STAND STRONG Ministries and faculty member at Summit Ministries. He is a pastor, apologist, and national speaker who has ministered to families for over twenty years. In his extensive ministry career, Jason has been a Children’s, Student, and College Pastor, and he has authored close to 10 books on topics related to apologetics, theology, and parenting.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/QjWWY4L

/by

Where is Our Faith?

By Brian Chilton

People are stressed. Sure, that is the understatement of the year. But it’s true. People are stressed for numerous reasons. Political issues, the pandemic, isolation, and financial strain are among many of the catalysts causing distress for individuals. Christians are among those who seem to be distressed the most. But why? I do not claim any super-spirituality for myself by any stretch of the imagination. However, it must be asked, where is our faith? Christians say they have faith. But does faith not especially prove true when things are rough?

This is a question that was posed to the disciples. Let your mind go back to an event preserved in Mark 4:35–41. The time: The first-century, circa AD 28. The place: The Sea of Galilee in Israel. Jesus, fully knowing what would happen, said to the disciples, “Let’s cross over to the other side of the sea” (Mark 4:35).[1] Without causing a stir, the disciples agreed. They were probably excited to perhaps catch a fish or two while they were on the water. Fishermen love to fish. Additionally, the company of disciples had been inundated with large crowds pressing to see and hear from Jesus. This trip was a welcome getaway from the bustling life of ministry; one that led them to act as Jesus’s security guards trying to keep the mobs from overwhelming Jesus.

Tragedy struck what should have been a pleasant trip while they were midway across the sea. A great windstorm came upon them. The power of the wind stirred up the sea causing waves to crash into the boat. The disciples struggled to keep the water out of the boat. They were fighting a losing battle. More water entered the boat than what they could cast out. The disciples thought they were doomed. Worse yet, Jesus was not bothered by their conundrum. He was found lying asleep in the stern of the boat. Distressed people are annoyed by other people who remain calm. Didn’t Jesus care about their plight? How could he remain sleeping? An unnamed disciple, most likely Peter, yelled at Jesus, saying, “Teacher! Don’t you care that we’re going to die?” (Mark 4:38). What was Jesus’s problem, anyway? How dare Jesus remain calm when everything was going haywire?

Jesus responded. When Jesus responds, things happen. He stood up, probably wiping the sleep from his eyes and perhaps cracking his neck, stretched out his arms, and said, “Silence! Be still” (Mark 4:39)! At that, the wind immediately stopped blowing and the sea became tranquil and serene. Terrified out of their wits, the disciples could not believe what they just witnessed. Jesus turned to them with steely eyes and asked, “Why are you still afraid? Do you still have no faith?” (Mark 4:40).

Jesus continues to ask his disciples this question. This time, he asks it of us. Jesus is in heaven, still alive and well after having defeated death and ascending to the right hand of the Father. Here we are today facing our own storms. Yet Jesus’s challenging words remain. Where is our faith? This question challenges at least three areas of our trust in him.

Where is Our Faith in God’s Probity?

Probity is the righteous characteristic of holding strong moral principles, honesty, and decency. God is the absolute good (1 John 1:5). God is the source of goodness (3 John 11). If God is the absolute good and the source of goodness, then God has the best of intentions from even the most difficult of circumstances. People generally want results without putting in the effort. Most preachers want to be like Billy Graham but very few are willing to put in the hours of study and preparation that Dr. Graham did. Many young men want to look like famed bodybuilders, but few want to put in the work to get there. Likewise, people want to be sanctified, but they don’t want to endure the process that God uses to build up his people. Do we trust in the goodness of God?

Where is Our Faith in God’s Power?

The disciples were stunned at the power that Jesus demonstrated. But should they have expected any different from Jesus? Scripture indicates that Jesus was not only the Son of God but that Jesus was also instrumental in creation (Col. 1:16). Before the disciples are criticized for their lack of faith, modern Christians must ask themselves if they still believe in the power of God. If they do, then they will realize that God is greater than any pandemic. They will also realize that God is greater than any political power. The believer should still live responsibility, seeking out the best for those around them. However, one should not be overcome with fear. Do we trust in the power of God?

Where is Our Faith in God’s Promises?

Here is the clincher. Jesus told us that pandemics, wars, and national powers were going to get worse as the timing of Christ’s return hastens. The closer the world gets to the return of Christ, the more chaotic the world becomes. Jesus said, “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, don’t be alarmed; these things must take place, but it is not yet the end” (Mark 13:7). He goes on to say, “There will be famines, and earthquakes in various places” (Matt. 24:7). Interestingly, some translations add epidemics or pandemics to the list. No matter whether epidemics should be added or not, the pale green horseman of the book of Revelation notes that the world will be plagued by pandemics before the return of Christ (Rev. 6:8). Jesus teaches that all these things are but the “beginning of birth pains” (Mark 13:8). A woman begins to experience labor pains before the baby is eventually born. Likewise, global and national disturbances are but labor pains notifying individuals that Jesus’s return is imminent. God has already laid out his prophetic plans. Do we trust in God’s promises?

Conclusion

Perhaps our lack of faith speaks more to the biblical illiteracy of our times than anything else. Maybe the reason that people have no more trust in God’s plan is that preachers and teachers are not emphasizing the teachings and prophetic message of Jesus. Or it could be that the modern absence of faith in God originates from a trust in self more than a trust in the Savior. No matter the cause, the modern believer needs to realize that pandemics, wars, and disturbances do not take God by surprise. God is working to bring us to a place where pandemics, wars, and disturbances do not exist. Believers have every reason to trust God, especially in times like these.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, and the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/ujliwpY

/by

How Reason Supports Belief In The Existence of God

,

By Al Serrato

Many atheists today hold the view that faith and reason are opposites.  They view Christians as believing in God “despite the evidence” instead of because of it, and as long as they hold that view, they will not be open to considering the evidence for God’s existence.  In my last post, I discussed the importance of precision in language, so as to convey the correct notion that reason underlies faith, as it underlies all sound thinking.  Skeptics who realize that there is nothing irrational about “having faith” may eventually be open to considering the evidence for the God of the Bible.   

As a picture paints a thousand words, good analogies can go a long way toward making intellectual concepts like this clear.  They can help the listener see that they do in fact rely on “faith” all the time.   Because no one can know all things with complete certainty, a decision to believe that something is true – that it describes the way things really are – is a decision that relies on faith.  We all do it, often intuitively and without much thought because it is simply the way our minds work.
 
Since the specific question at issue when considering God’s existence is whether “someone” is there, analogies that make that point can be helpful.  Of course, the easiest way to know someone is there is to actually see the person.  That would constitute direct evidence.  But you can also know someone is there by deduction or inference.  The footsteps you see in the sand are pretty powerful indicators that someone was recently walking by.  Mail-in your mailbox did not spontaneously appear.  Or imagine being a police officer coming upon the scene of a burglary; you will strongly suspect someone is inside if you see the broken front door lock and hear movement inside. You may be wrong, but it would be rational for you to conclude that someone is there.  If you bring in a police dog that moves to a particular closet in the house, you can be quite sure that someone is behind the door.  Despite lacking direct or conclusive knowledge, you would not dismiss these conclusions as being based “on faith,” but would instead recognize that you are employing reason to form conclusions about things you cannot directly see.

Now at this point, the atheist may say “Okay that makes some sense. I can deduce ‘someone is there’ from circumstantial evidence, but I already know that people exist, so it is no surprise that a particular person might be on the beach, or delivering mail, or hiding in the house.  Now you want me to believe in a God that no one has any direct experience with?”  Yes, in fact, I do.  

While certainly different in magnitude, the universe – like the sand on the beach or the contents of the mailbox – is a canvas upon which evidence of God’s existence can be seen. Ponder for a moment the exquisite order and complexity of the universe, the information embedded in life, the existence of consciousness, morality, music, and math – all these bear witness to the Designer’s hand. They are discrete bits of evidence upon which a comprehensive circumstantial case can be built. Science, in other words, can provide the tools, and furnish the support, for a well-ground belief in the need for a transcendent Creator.

The scientific community is already embarked upon a similar exercise, in the hunt for extraterrestrial intelligence. All around the globe, radio telescopes are probing the distant reaches of space, hoping to pick up the telltale signals of intelligent life. Frequency ranges have been devoted to this pursuit by international agreement, so as to increase the chance that signal pollution from Earth-bound sources does not interfere. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been committed to this effort to find what no one definitively can say exists – life in the cosmos. The effort is called SETI – the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.

These are not religious fundamentalists at work; they are highly educated and trained scientists who know what so many in academia refuse to acknowledge – that reason can be employed to conclude that “something is out there.” What are these scientists hoping to find? Because they believe they can distinguish random noise – things naturally occurring – from signals that are specified and complex, they believe they can see the blueprint of intelligence in signals that are not random but instead designed to convey information. They look primarily for mathematical equations, trusting that universal laws will be knowable to any sentient being and will be a means to communicate, even if our spoken languages are different. NASA did something similar with its deep space probes Pioneer and Voyager; information encoded in the universal language of math and music even now hurtle further into the abyss, awaiting, perhaps, discovery by some advanced intelligence.

Now, let’s suppose that these scientists begin receiving a coded message. With effort, they eventually decode the language, finding that it consists of four letters. These four letters are arranged into billions of lines of code, which the scientists ultimately realize constitute a blueprint to build an extremely complex machine – a self-replicating machine with thousands of interdependent parts that must assemble themselves, correct errors as they occur and continue functioning in harmony decade after decade. What if scientists could begin working with this code to make changes and to alter the natural order of things? Would this not be enough to convince even the most skeptical that “something” highly intelligent and incredibly powerful was out there? That we are not alone?

So why aren’t more people convinced. After all, we already are the recipients of such directed intelligence. The four-letter language that codes billions of lines of instructions to build a complex machine is, of course, DNA. In short, while the scientific community remains largely materialistic, that façade is starting to crack, as more is learned about the incredibly information-rich nature of DNA, as well as the fine-tuned nature of the laws of the universe. Such information, and such laws, are not random. While some continue to insist that DNA evolved from lifeless matter, they have no mechanism to explain the beginning of DNA. Even the earliest single celled life form required such massive amounts of information that self-assembly is simply implausible.

We all know it intuitively: information requires a source. This alone does not prove the God of the Bible. But knowing that “something” is out there is not a matter of “faith.” Reason itself demands it.

There are none so blind as those who, despite the evidence, continue to refuse to see.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace 

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace 

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

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

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

/by

5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity

By Alisa Childers

Several years ago, my husband and I began attending a local Evangelical, non-denominational church, and we loved it. We cherished the sense of community we found among the loving and authentic people we met there, and the intelligent, “outside the box” pastor who led our flock with thought-provoking and insightful sermons. Sadly, the church started going off the rails theologically, and after about a year and a half, we made the difficult decision to leave. Today that church is a self-titled “Progressive Christian Community.” 

Back then I had never heard of “Progressive Christianity,” and even now it is difficult to pin down what actually qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs that fall under that designation. However, there are signs—certain phrases and ideas—that seem to be consistent in Progressive circles. Here are 5 danger signs to watch for in your church:

 1. There is a lowered view of the Bible 

One of the main differences between Progressive Christianity and Historic Christianity is its view of the Bible. Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as the Word of God and authoritative for our lives. Progressive Christianity generally abandons these terms, emphasizing personal belief over the biblical mandate.

Comments you might hear:

  • ​The Bible is a human book…
  • I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue…
  • The Bible condones immorality, so we are obligated to reject what it says in certain places…
  • ​The Bible “contains” the word of God…

2. Feelings are emphasized over facts

In Progressive churches, personal experiences, feelings, and opinions tend to be valued above objective truth. As the Bible ceases to be viewed as God’s definitive word, what a person feels to be true becomes the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Comments you might hear:

  • That Bible verse doesn’t resonate with me…
  • I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people…
  • I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell…

3. Essential Christian doctrines are open for re-interpretation

Progressive author John Pavlovitz wrote, “There are no sacred cows [in Progressive Christianity]….Tradition, dogma, and doctrine are all fair game, because all pass through the hands of flawed humanity.” Progressive Christians are often open to re-defining and re-interpreting the Bible on hot-button moral issues like homosexuality and abortion, and also cardinal doctrines such as the virgin conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The only sacred cow is “no sacred cows.” 

Comments you might hear:

  • The resurrection of Jesus doesn’t have to be factual to speak truth…
  • The church’s historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework…
  • The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted…

​4. Historic terms are re-defined

There are some Progressive Christians who say they affirm doctrines like biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and authority, but they have to do linguistic gymnastics to make those words mean what they want them to mean. I remember asking a Pastor, “Do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired?” He answered confidently, “Yes, of course!” However, I mistakenly assumed that when using the word “inspired,” we both meant the same thing. He clarified months later what he meant—that the Bible is inspired in the same way and on the same level as many other Christian books, songs, and sermons. This, of course, is not how Christians have historically understood the doctrine of divine inspiration.

Another word that tends to get a Progressive make-over is the word “love.” When plucked out of its biblical context, it becomes a catch-all term for everything non-confrontative, pleasant, and affirming.

Comments you might hear:

  • God wouldn’t punish sinners—He is love…
  • Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we’ve misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history…
  • It’s not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it’s our job to just love them…

​5.  The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

There is no doubt that the Bible commands us to take care of the unfortunate and defend those who are oppressed. This is a very real and profoundly important part of what it means to live out our Christian faith. However, the core message of Christianity—the gospel—is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected, and thereby reconciled us to God. This is the message that will truly bring freedom to the oppressed.

Many Progressive Christians today find the concept of God willing His Son to die on the cross to be embarrassing or even appalling. Sometimes referred to as “cosmic child abuse,” the idea of blood atonement is de-emphasized or denied altogether, with social justice and good works enthroned in its place.

Comments you might hear:

  • Sin doesn’t separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good…
  • God didn’t actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms…
  • We don’t really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy…

Conclusion:

Identifying the signs is not always obvious—sometimes they are subtle and mixed with a lot of truth. Progressive Christianity can be persuasive and enticing but carried out to its logical end, it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity, leaving it disarmed of its saving power.

We shouldn’t be surprised to find some of these ideas infiltrating our churches. Jesus warned us, “Watch out for false prophets” who “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). So if you spot any of these 5 danger signs in your place of worship, it might be time to pray about finding fellowship in a more biblically faithful church community.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Letters to a Young Progressive by Mike Adams (Book)

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

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/Ijk76DJ

/by

Was the Virgin Birth Story Made Up?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Did The Virgin Birth Really Happen?

What would you say if someone asked you if the story of Jesus’ virgin birth was real, or if it was copied from other religions? In this post, you see how to think through a few challenges to the historicity of the Virgin Birth. First, we’ll answer the question “Was the Virgin Birth copied from myths?” Then, we’ll think through the idea that the first Christians just made the whole thing up.

Where should we start when we hear about a supposedly parallel account in some old myth? The first thing to do is check out the myth for yourself and see if there’s really a parallel virginal conception there.

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Copied from Myths

For example, here are the top three stories that tend to come up in my conversations about the virgin birth..and check out my hand-drawn illustrations, too–that’s not stock art!

Horus – No Virgin Birth Story

When Peter Joseph’s conspiracy film, Zeitgeist, came out in 2007, I had a student come up to me after I taught one of my World Religion classes at a local college. As we were walking out to the parking lot together, he told me about this film and wanted to know if the story of Jesus was really based on pagan myths. For example, the video asserted that Jesus’ virgin birth was parallel with the birth of an Egyptian god named Horus. But does the myth itself really say that Horus was born of a virgin?

In Egyptian mythology, Horus’ mother, Isis, was already married to the god Osiris for some time before his conception. But more than this, the best Egyptian account of the myth tells us that that Horus was not born of a virgin. It actually says that Isis “took in his seed and created the heir…Osiris’ son, Horus, stout of heart, justified, son of Isis.”[1] So the idea that the first Christians copied the story of Jesus’ virgin birth from Horus doesn’t work right off the bat. Why? Because there’s no virgin birth story there to copy. In fact, there is no ancient evidence of a story about Horus being born of a virgin.

Mithra – No Virgin Birth Story

But other people have heard something about Jesus’ virgin birth being copied from the story of a god named Mithra. I remember hearing about this one Christmas in 1997, when I was just an undergrad at Biola. Honestly, I had no clue what to think. I wish someone would have encouraged me to see if there were any ancient stories saying that Mithra was literally born of a virgin. Because there aren’t any. Not one.

There are actually a few versions of how Mithra was created, but none of them have anything like Jesus’ virginal conception. For example, in the Roman version, Mithra was born as a full-grown adult coming out of the side of a rock. There’s actually an ancient inscription that says Mithra was “born from the rock.”[2] So, in Mithra’s story, not only is there no virgin, but there’s not even a woman! So, unless you want to call a huge rock a “virgin,” that’s not gonna work. No parallel there.

Caesar Augustus – No Virgin Birth Story

I remember one Christmas, seeing an ABC News special on Jesus where a scholar by the name of John Dominic Crossan compared the story of Jesus’ virginal conception to the idea that the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus was believed to be the son of Apollo. He was kind of suggesting these stories were “all over Greek and Roman mythology.” But does Augustus’ story actually talk about a virginal conception?

According to the Roman historian Suetonius, Augustus’ mother had already been married for years before a snake suddenly showed up while she was sleeping. She discovered this strange mark on herself and 10 months later, Augustus was born.[3] But again, in this story, there is no virginal conception at all. Augustus’ mom already had a kid with her husband before Augustus was born. He even had an older sister![4]

Checking out the ancient sources for alleged parallels is a good place to start when thinking through the idea that the Virgin Birth was borrowed from pagan mythology. In this case, we can be confident that the story of Jesus’ virgin birth wasn’t copied from Horus, Mithra or Augustus because none of them was said to be born of a literal human virgin in any ancient myth.

But if the virgin birth wasn’t copied, does that mean the church just made the whole thing up? How should we think through the claim that church made up the story of Jesus’ virgin birth?

The Virgin Birth wasn’t Made up by the Church

Here are three reasons why it doesn’t look like the early church made up the story of Jesus’ virgin birth.

The Virgin Birth Raised Suspicions

Making up a fake story about Jesus’ virgin birth wouldn’t make Christianity more attractive to the Jews. It would actually make people suspicious about Jesus. Who was the real dad? Did Mary hook up with a Roman soldier? That kind of thing. Why make it more difficult to accept the Christian message? The ancient church wouldn’t have taught that Jesus was born of a virgin unless they had good reasons for believing he actually was.

The Virgin Birth Wasn’t Emphasied

But other people say the Virgin Birth story would make Christianity seem more attractive–maybe not to the Jews, but to the to Greeks and Romans. They were into emperor worship. They were cool with thinking of their leaders as gods. But that’s just one part of the story.

When we see the gospel preached in the New Testament, the church doesn’t emphasize the Virgin Birth story at all. Why wouldn’t the earliest Christians make more of Jesus’ virgin birth if they invented it to make the faith seem more attractive to the people who weren’t Jewish? Why wouldn’t they talk it up if the made it up?

The Virgin Birth is Different from Myths

People who thought of certain human rulers as gods only thought they were lower gods in the context of polytheism–a belief in many gods. For example, no one thought Caesar Augustus was the one, true God who made the heavens and the earth. More than this, there’s no snake sneaking up on Mary in the gospels accounts. Jesus is just conceived in her womb as miracle of God and the Bible doesn’t say much about how that actually happened.

In the end, it’s pretty unlikely that the first Christians would make up the story of the Virgin Birth because it wouldn’t help advance the Christian cause. If they thought it would help their case, why didn’t they emphasize this story in their preaching? And if the virgin birth was patterned after myths, why doesn’t it look like these myths?

It’s Reasonable to Believe the Virgin Birth Happened

So  the church didn’t get the Virgin Birth story from somewhere else and they didn’t create it out of theological reflection; That means—as unusual as it sounds—the Virgin Birth story must have come from a real event. In other words, if the Virgin Birth wasn’t copied from myths and it wasn’t made up, the remaining option is that the Virgin Birth is real.

If there really is a creator God who made the heavens and the earth, and if Jesus left heaven to come to earth, it’s reasonable to believe that the virgin birth happened.

Notes

[1] The Great Hymn To Osiris From Dynasty 18 (Stela Louvre C 286) Mentions Isis’ Impregnation By Her Brother-Husband, Osiris, In This Myth: “Isis The Powerful…Took In His Seed And Created The Heir, Who Suckled The Child In Solitude…Osiris’ Son, Horus, Stout Of Heart, Justified, Son Of Isis, Heir Of Osiris.” Jan Assmann, Death And Salvation In Ancient Egypt, 24-25.

Françoise Dunand And Christiane Zivie-Coche Explain Horus’ Birth Succinctly In Their Publication With Cornell University Press: “After Having Sexual Intercourse, In The Form Of A Bird, With The Dead God She Restored To Life, [Isis] Gave Birth To A Posthumous Son, Horus.” Gods And Men In Egypt, 39. See Also All About Horus – An Egyptian Copy Of Christ? For More Scholarly Sources Refuting The Zeitgeist Movie’s Claims About Horus.

[2] “Mithra Was Known As The Rock-Born God. The Inscriptions Confirm This Nomenclature: One Even Reads D(Eo) O(Omipotenti) S(Oli) Invi(Cto), Deo Genitori, R(Upe) N(Ato), ‘To The Almighty God Sun Invincible, Generative God, Born From The Rock’. Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult Of Mithra: The God And His Mysteries, 62-63.

[3] “When [Augustus’ Mother] Atia Had Come In The Middle Of The Night To The Solemn Service Of Apollo, She Had Her Litter Set Down In The Temple And Fell Asleep, While The Rest Of The Matrons Also Slept. On A Sudden A Serpent Glided Up To Her And Shortly Went Away. When She Awoke, She Purified Herself, As If After The Embraces Of Her Husband, And At Once There Appeared On Her Body A Mark In Colors Like A Serpent, And She Could Never Get Rid Of It; So That Presently She Ceased Ever To Go To The Public Baths. In The Tenth Month After That Augustus Was Born And Was Therefore Regarded As The Son Of Apollo.” Suetonius “Twelve Caesars” Augustus 94:4, Accessed Online At Http://Penelope.Uchicago.Edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12caesars/Augustus*.Html

[4] Octavia Was Augustus’ Full Sister. Http://Www.Britannica.Com/Ebchecked/Topic/424838/Octavia

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Miracles: The Evidence by Frank Turek DVD and Mp4

Two Miracles You Take With You Everywhere You Go by Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

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

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/UhIEyN5

/by

Tag Archive for: Christianity

Nothing Found

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria