Is Jesus Alive Archives - CrossExamined

Tag Archive for: Is Jesus Alive

Learn To Make a Maximal Case For The Resurrection

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

I used to love sharing the minimal facts with unbelievers. It’s easy to present in a few minutes and sounds rhetorically powerful. When I tell my friends that the facts I’m sharing are universally acknowledged by scholars, even those who are skeptical, it seems like I am not coming at them with something that only conservative evangelicals believe. And on the surface, taking an end-run around the Gospels seemed helpful because unbelievers tend to view them as dubious sources.

However, I ran into a couple of issues. One was practical. Let’s say I got the skeptic to hear me out. Does it really make sense to say: “OK, I granted for the sake of argument that the Gospels are a hot mess of contradictions and historical gaffes. I now wanna take that back and argue that they’re much more reliable than that. You should accept orthodox Christian doctrine” The skeptic might ask “um… if that were true, why’d you start out granting so much for the sake of argument?” This feels like bait and switch.

WHY MAXIMAL DATA?

Plus, once an objection like grief hallucinations or mass delusions came up, I’d eventually have to back up and present other facts that skeptical and liberal scholars didn’t acknowledge. Any imagined rhetorical advantage evaporated. This approach didn’t really save time. If I wanted to defend the bodily appearances, the empty tomb, or the early persecution of the Twelve, I couldn’t “do it all with Paul.” I’d have to learn to defend the reliability of the Gospels and Acts. There are no shortcuts.

The good news is that this can be both rewarding and faith-building. You won’t be lost for words when you’ll hear a scholarly critic like Bart Ehrman lay out a list of complaints about the Gospels. You’ll no longer have to console yourself with “well, I’m not sure how to answer that, but at least the core facts are true.” You can read the Gospels and not wonder “is this part really defensibly historical?” Learning this approach kills cognitive dissonance.

OBJECTIONS TO MAXIMAL DATA

The only drawback is that you’ll be told you hold fringy views. But again, saying that there is evidence that the tomb was empty or the resurrection appearances were physical is already considered fringy to the scholarly consensus anyway. And importantly, scholarly politics can’t trump the force of objective evidence. It doesn’t mean that something is weakly supported by non-question-begging evidence because it isn’t granted by skeptical and liberal scholars. Nor does it mean we’re making a “for the Bible tells me so” argument.

When the skeptic asks, “what about all the contradictions?” you can offer to revisit them later and continue to make your positive case, rather than conceding them for the sake of argument. And by the way, the robust reliability argument can also be made in a way that’s just as quick and easy to share as minimal facts. It goes like this:

Either the disciples were deceivers, deceived, or they were telling the truth.
They were not deceivers. (They had good reasons not to lie considering they’d be ostracized and persecuted)
They were not merely mistaken or deceived. (We can tell this by the accounts they gave of seeing, touching, and talking with Jesus over a long period of time after the resurrection)
Therefore, they were telling the truth.

There! That’s not so hard now, is it? You could make that argument on an elevator. You just need to be prepared to back it up with additional evidence. So with this in mind, I’m going to tell you about 3 modern books you can pick up for around $50 total. And then I’m going to give you three older, public domain books that you can get off the Google Play store that won’t cost you a dime.

Resource #1: The Case For Jesus – Brant Pitre

This book helps answer a whole host of questions: Were the four Gospels really anonymous? Aren’t they written far too late to be considered reliable? Aren’t the Gospels folklore? What about the lost Gospels, like the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Peter? Is Jesus only divine in the Gospel of John and not the Synoptics?

Pitre offers some neglected evidence from the early church fathers and ancient manuscripts to demonstrate that the Gospels are not anonymous, as skeptics like to assert. Furthermore, he puts Jesus of Nazareth’s divine claims in an ancient Jewish context in a way that blew my mind. You won’t look at the phrases Son of Man and Kingdom of God in the same way.

Resource #2: Can We Trust the Gospels? – Peter J. Williams

This is a super accessible book and only 140 pages. The whole thing is great, but chapter 3 is worth the price of the book alone. Skeptics often claim that the Gospels were written decades later by people unfamiliar with 1st-century Palestine. If that’s true, we’d expect to find all kinds of errors regarding Palestinian geography, names, and customs, but Williams demonstrates time and time again that the Gospel writers get these details right, including many difficult types of details. Based on the data, Williams concludes that “The resulting Gospels are not what we would expect from people who made up stories at a geographical distance.” This serves as evidence that the evangelists were well-informed, consistently trustworthy, and close up to the facts.

Resource #3: Hidden in Plain View – Lydia McGrew

Having been largely neglected for over a century, Lydia McGrew revives an argument for the reliability of the NT called undesigned coincidences. In a nutshell, an undesigned coincidence is an apparently casual, yet puzzle-like fit between two or more texts, and its best explanation is that the authors knew the truth about the events they describe or allude to. These connections are among passages in the Gospels, as well as between Acts and Paul’s epistles. These lend credence to the idea that these documents were written by eyewitnesses who knew what they were talking about. This is relevant to developing a case for the resurrection. For if the gospels can be shown to be rooted in credible eyewitness testimony, you have to take seriously the reported nature and variety of the post-resurrection encounters with the risen Jesus as coming from the original eyewitnesses.

Seeing examples of this in action is the easiest way to understand it. You can find plenty of interviews and lectures on YouTube where Dr. McGrew shares this argument.

I’d also highly recommend her other two books if you are interested in learning more about the Gospels’ reliability. Those are The Eye of the Beholder (which is a defense of John’s Gospel) and The Mirror and the Mask, which argues against claims made by evangelical scholars that the Gospel authors felt free to present events in one way even though they knew that the reality was different. These are a little more technical than her first book, and a great place to start if you want to go deeper into the issues.

FREE RESOURCES

Now, for the free resources: JJ Blunt’s book Undesigned Coincidencesand William Paley’s Horae Paulinaeare the non-updated versions of Lydia McGrew’s Hidden in Plain View. I still recommend you get Lydia’s book, because she picks the “best of” these undesigned coincidences, and she has discovered several more that are not in these older books. If you’re on a budget, these are great additions to your library. And if you’re not on a budget, get them anyway. Both of these books are still worth reading even after reading Hidden in Plain View.

Finally, get A View of the Evidences of Christianity by William Paley. I cannot recommend this book enough. Paley debunks Hume’s anti-miracle argument. He examines all the evidence that the original witnesses of Christianity were willing to undergo labors, dangers, and suffering in order to spread the gospel of the resurrection.

He goes into great detail regarding the authorship and early use of the Gospels, which includes the unanimous testimony of the early church and even some heretics. Paley takes us into the unity of the character of Christ in all four Gospels. This answers some of the “why’s John’s Jesus so different?” objections. Paley also demonstrates 41 instances where the Gospel writers make incidental allusions to history that can be confirmed outside the NT, even down to minor details. These illustrate the evangelists’ familiarity with the setting and their accuracy in recounting details. He discusses alleged discrepancies in the Gospels, prophecy, and so much more. I can’t do this book justice in a short video. Just get it. Sure, his style of writing is from the 18th-century and his arguments could use a little updating. However, this book has mostly stood the test of time and should not be forgotten.

Just search the Google Play store for these three public domain books and you can find free versions. There are many other books I could recommend, but these are meant to get you started. I just want to assure you that this isn’t a very difficult method to learn. It took time to learn the minimal facts approach, and you can take the time to learn this. There may be extra details, but we’ve seen that extra details are needed anyway to make a strong case. We can all find less time for Twitter, Instagram, or reading the latest political news, or binge-watching Netflix. You just have to set priorities.

Skeptics have poked apart the minimalist approaches to the resurrection for far too long. We need an army of Christian apologists who can make a more robust case. You can do this.

The Gospels Are Embarrassing for The Apostles

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

If you want people to trust their leaders, you usually would try to paint them in the best light possible. You don’t go out of your way to undermine their authority. But that isn’t what we see at all in the Gospels. Those who would eventually lead the church often look impulsive, incompetent, boastful, and stupid. If the Gospels are supposed to be PR for the apostles, their propaganda team was a dismal failure.

This kind of information is what NT scholars call the criteria of embarrassment. In his book, Marginal Jew, Meier writes:

The point of the criterion is that the early church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents.

Marginal Jew

Those Faithless Disciples

Let’s look at the Gospel of Mark since most believe it is the earliest Gospel. Mark tells us that the disciples were often faithless. When encountered by a storm when crossing a lake, the disciples panicked. (Mk 4:35-41) They brazenly accused Jesus of not caring about them, and Jesus rebuked them for not having any faith. They were also terrified to see Jesus walking on the water only two chapters later. (Mk 6:50)

When a man brought his demonized son to his followers, the disciples were too incompetent to give the boy any help. Jesus chided them for their lack of faith. (Mk 9:17-19) Mark also tells us that Jesus’ own family thought that he was nuts. (Mk 3:21) Later we read in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians that James and Jesus’ other siblings became leaders in the church. (Acts 15, 1 Cor 9:5, Galatians 1-2) So far, the future heads of Jesus’ church look like a sorry bunch.

The Disciples Were Slow

Mark also tells us that the disciples were extremely slow on the uptake. They asked questions about Jesus’ parables that he expected them, of all people, to understand. His main points were often lost on them. (Mk 4:13, 7:18)

Jesus had previously fed a crowd of 5000 and later 4000 with a few loaves and fish. Shortly afterward, Jesus said that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. What did the disciples do in response? They fussed with each other because they forgot to pack bread for their boat trip across the lake. Jesus had to remind them that food was neither his point nor an issue. That should’ve been obvious by then. (Mk 8:14-21)

The Disciples Were Rude

The disciples were notoriously bad-mannered. As I mentioned earlier, they accused Jesus of not caring about them when he was sleeping during the storm. Peter had the genius idea of rebuking Jesus when he said he was going to sacrifice himself. Jesus called Peter Satan in response, so yeah, that didn’t go over big. (Mk 8:31-33)

When people brought small children to be blessed by Jesus, like ogres, his disciples tried to run them off. (Mk 10:13-14) When the woman anointed Jesus’ feet with costly perfume, Mark tells us that “they rebuked her harshly.” Not a smooth move. Jesus emphatically told them to leave her alone. She had more value for Jesus than they all did put together. (Mk 14:4-9)

The disciples fought over who was the greatest, and John and James had the brass to ask Jesus if they could sit at his right and left hand when he came into his kingdom. (Mk 9:33-34, 10:35-37) They clearly didn’t understand the kind of servant-leadership that Jesus was modeling.

The Going Got Tough, The Disciples Ran

In Jesus’ darkest hour, they bragged about being willing to die before abandoning him. (Mk 14:31) While Jesus was praying they all fell asleep. (Mk 14:37-42) And when he was arrested, they all fled. (Mk 14:50) Peter ended up denying him three times when pressed by a servant girl (Mark 14:66-72), and they all were AWOL on the day of the resurrection. (Mk 16:1-9) Even though Jesus repeatedly told them he’d rise again three days later. (Mk 8:31-32, 9:30-32, 10:32-34, 14:28) Even atheist scholars like Gerd Ludemann use the criteria of embarrassment when arguing for the historicity of Peter’s denial. (The Resurrection of Christ, p 162)

Finally, who actually showed up at the tomb? The women (Mk 16:1). They were the first eyewitnesses to the empty tomb. This is itself an embarrassing detail, as a woman’s testimony in the 1st-century context carried very little weight.

“But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex” … (Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.15).
“Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer)” … (Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 1.8c).

Luke tells us that the disciples thought the women’s testimony was “nonsense.” They didn’t believe them. (Luke 24:11) 100 years later Celsus would mock the Christians for believing the tales of a hysterical woman. (Contra Celsum 2.54)

Again, if this is supposed to be Christian propaganda to make their leaders look good, or make the resurrection story more plausible, the Gospel writers caused problems for themselves. In the words of scholar NT Wright:

“As historians, we are obliged to comment that if these stories had been made up five years later, let alone thirty, forty, or fifty years later, they would never have had Mary Magdalene in this role. To put Mary there is, from the point of view of Christian apologists wanting to explain to a skeptical audience that Jesus really did rise from the dead, like shooting themselves in the foot. But to us as historians, this kind of thing is gold dust. The early Christians would never, never have made this up.”

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Embarrassing Details In Acts

And it’s not like things are hunky-dory in the Book of Acts, either. You know, that book about the apostles taking over after Jesus. You would think Luke would make them look like they finally got their act together. Instead, we see that Paul and Barnabas got in a big tiff over bringing Mark (the future Gospel writer!) because Mark got homesick and left them in the middle of ministry earlier. (Acts 15:36-40) Mark is later mentioned in Paul’s letters, so apparently, things got patched up later. (Philemon 24)

There was also racist bickering going on in the infant church in Jerusalem because the Hellenized Jewish widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food. (Acts 6:1)

And even though Jesus told them to take the Gospel to the entire world it took a special vision for Peter to finally understand that it was OK to preach to those unclean Gentiles seemingly years later. (Acts 10)

What Real Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Luke and Mark hardly make the apostles out to be saints. Now compare this to other Christian propaganda. Eusebius wrote a biography of Emperor Constantine that was very charitable, to say the least. He slyly omits that Constantine had his own son Crispus and his other wife Fausta killed. Eusebius instead makes Constantine out to be a super saint. Now that is what real propaganda looks like.

It is hard to imagine the early Christians inventing embarrassments for themselves when they already had enough problems from persecution! And yet, it is difficult to read the Gospel of Mark without getting a negative impression of the apostles. Again, this is the earliest of the Gospels according to most scholars. Eyewitnesses would still be around, including some of the apostles. These negative statements are strong indications that these things were really said. NT scholar C.E.B. Cranfield concludes:

“The fact that the perplexing and offensive material…was preserved at all and reached Mark says much for the general reliability of the sources used by him.”

These self-damaging materials are one more reason why we can trust the Gospels. This kind of evidence doesn’t by itself prove that the Gospels are reliable, but it does lend some support to that view. It’s one part of a much larger cumulative case.

Without Training, The Church Will Create More Jon Steingards

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Recently Jon Steingard made headlines after he announced over Instagram that he had lost his faith. Steingard was the lead vocalist of the Christian music group Hawk Nelson, which became popular in the early 2000s. Since they had so many fans, this obviously sent shockwaves over social media.

In the post, Steingard gives several reasons why he no longer believes. He does ask some challenging questions when he writes, “If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why is there evil in the world? Can he not do anything about it? Does he choose not to? Is the evil in the world a result of his desire to give us free will? OK then, what about famine and disease and floods and all the suffering that isn’t caused by humans and our free will?”

Philosophers call this the problem of natural evil, and I think it’s one of the bigger challenges out there. That said, I think it’s been addressed successfully. But I do get that not everyone is going to be convinced by every theodicy given for natural evil.

But what I want to address is another objection Jon brought up, because it raised a red flag. He wrote:

“Why does God seem so p***sed off in most of the Old Testament, and then all of a sudden he’s a loving father in the New Testament? Why does he say not to kill, but then instructs Israel to turn around and kill men, women, and children to take the promised land? Why does God lead Job to suffer horrible things just to win a bet with Satan?! Why does he tell Abraham to kill his son (more killing again), and then basically says, “Just kidding, that was a test”?”

Why Is God Nice In The Old Testament, But Always Angry In The New Testament?

So there’s inconsistency with the mean God of the OT and the nice, friendly Jesus of the New. Or is there? Let me run a similar argument to Steingard’s:

“Why is God always ticked in the New Testament, but a loving husband in the Old? Why does Jesus say not to kill, but then he turns around and says “I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.”

And why does God kill Ananias and Sapphira, even though they gave away half of their property to the church?! Why does he allow Paul to turn a man over to Satan for “the destruction of his flesh” just because a man was in a relationship outside of marriage? (Is this some kind of sick bet?) And why does God allow the Corinthians to become sick and die young, (more killing again) because they took communion wrong?

Or why does Jesus call a Syrophoenician woman a dog? Or why does he curse an innocent fig tree? Or why does Jesus say he hasn’t come to bring peace, but a sword?

In the Old Testament God’s a loving husband, who even stays with Israel even though she’s accurately depicted as a faithless prostitute in Hosea. He says he’d tattoo her on the palms of his hands, and sing over her with joy. He even just forgives the Ninevites even though they had done terrible things in the book of Jonah. In the Old Testament, he’s a good shepherd who will follow Israel with goodness and mercy all the days of their life.“

How Could Steingard Not Know?

So you see, we can easily run this argument of Steingard’s in reverse and twist the texts. What is confusing to me because his father and father-in-law are both pastors. Steingard was a Christian his entire life. How can he not be aware of these verses?

I bring this up to say there’s no disconnect between Yahweh of the Old Testament and the Jesus of the New. The reason why God seems harsh under both covenants is that he doesn’t change, he always hates sin. But he still delights in showing mercy. He’s patient and kind in both testaments, not willing that any should perish. (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:41) As Paul writes in Romans 11:22, “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you too will be cut off.”

A Cultural Recipe For Apostasy

I can’t say for sure, but judging from his statements, it’s as if Steingard previously only considered one side of God’s character. When you look at a lot of the seeker-friendly movement that is so prevalent in today’s western church, all you hear is the side of love. So perhaps reading these passages in the Old Testament came as a shock, but shouldn’t when you read the entire New Testament.

It also seems that in our Western-democratic culture, our belief and confidence in the powers of our intellect has increased to the point where we think we can play armchair God and assume we know and would do better. As the philosopher Charles Taylor has observed, it’s only in our modern era that we get “the certainty that we have all the elements we need to carry out a trial of God.”

Steingard Is Sawing Off The Branch He’s Sitting On

But we can’t just assume that a God beyond our understanding can’t exist without begging the question. By abandoning faith in God, he’s put his faith instead in his ability to reason and judge God. But this isn’t a better foundation.

As Douglas Wilson has written, “If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine corresponds to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true, but rather because of a series of chemical reactions. Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn, created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.”

In other words, Steingard has tragically sawn off the branch he was sitting on. According to many atheistic philosophers, naturalism spells trouble for reason, free will, and the morality that Steingard is judging God with. If atheism is true, we’re all dancing to the music of our DNA, as Richard Dawkins says.

That means all our beliefs are the product of non-rational, deterministic physical forces beyond our control, whether we’re theists or naturalists. In fact, if Steingard’s conclusions are right, it’s only by accident, not because he’s now more intellectually better than the believer. That is to say; the atheist would have a true accidental belief (which isn’t the same thing as knowledge) rather than warranted true belief (which is knowledge). I hope he scrutinizes his newfound unbelief at least as much as he scrutinized his faith.

The Church Needs To Do Better

As Christians, we can do better in several areas: We need to poke holes in atheism and show where the greater absurdities lie. Hint: Not with Christianity. Naturalism removes the foundation for reason and morality that secularists so greatly cherish. A book I’d highly recommend for this topic is Mitch Stokes’ How to Be An Atheist.

We also need to defend the character of God and not hide from difficult passages in both the Old and New Testament. While it’s good and right to study arguments for the existence of God and especially for the resurrection, we need to go a step further and be able to deal with difficult passages in both the OT and NT. On this topic, I highly recommend Paul Copan’s book Is God a Moral Monster?

It’s also notable that Steingard said nothing about the evidence for the resurrection. It doesn’t matter if we always like what we find in the Bible if Jesus rose from the dead. We have to teach on these bedrock truths of our faith.

And finally, pastors can no longer only preach 20-minute sermons on the love of God in hopes of attracting crowds. Don’t get me wrong. I think we should absolutely major on the love of God. After all, God is love. But even love gets angry at sin, and we need to stop minimizing God’s wrath. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’re going to create many more Jon Steingards.

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

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:

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).
What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

John Allen Chau’s death has sparked questions about the morality of Christian missions. Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, by now you’ve heard about the death of John Allen Chau. The 26-year old missionary traveled to a remote Indian island in hopes of sharing his faith with an isolated and uncivilized tribe called the Sentinelese. This group was known for their aggression towards outsiders and even fired arrows on his approaching boat. Unmoved, Chau made it to the island only to have been killed the next day. To avoid conflict with the Sentinelese, local authorities have given up trying to recover his body.

Chau’s death has sparked a lot of debate about the morality of Christian missions. Let’s just say that the reaction has not been all that empathetic. Social media have called him all kinds of names. Some have even made him the subject of some pretty appalling and mean-spirited memes.

The press has also chimed in. Many have raised questions of arrogance and imperialism. Here’s just a little sampling:

“This was an act of cultural imperialism and insane arrogance…” — Janet Street-Porter, The Independent

“There is no question that this attempt to make contact was totally wrong and a major violation of their human rights to autonomy. Outsiders need to respect their wishes and treat them with dignity as fellow human beings. Respect means we don’t assume to know better how they should live.” — John Bodley, anthropologist, quoted in The New York Times

“Those who seek to change their culture, their gods or their beliefs are practicing a form of violence. Perhaps people will only understand this when extraterrestrials arrive here and try to evangelize us with their gods and doctrines.” — Sydney Possuelo, Brazilian explorer, quoted in The New York Post

Was Chau “a violator of human rights?” Are Christian missionaries practicing a “form of violence?”

If your smug-detector is working, you’re probably picking up on some thinly veiled arrogance in statements like these. There are some hidden assumptions going on here.

First, these statements assume some sort of religious relativism. Either all religions are equally valid paths to God. Or none of them really are, but people ought to be left alone to determine the truth for themselves.

Furthermore, these statements assume that Christians are wrong about the uniqueness of Christ.

It seems like that in our day the only heresy is to say that religious truth can be exclusive. This runs cross-grain against the message of the early church. Before the Sanhedrin, Peter said:

“Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead…Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:10–12)

If there is no resurrection, then all Christian missionaries are wasting their lives.

St. Paul is the paradigm of Christian missionaries. He traveled all over the Greco-Roman world, spreading the gospel to people who never heard about Jesus. He tried to convert Jews, and he tried converting idol-worshipers. He said he had an obligation to the civilized and the savage. (Romans 1:14) And he had a lot of success, but he also experienced great persecution.

In his letters and in the Book of Acts we read about what hardship he endured. He was in and out of prison. He was repeatedly whipped, beaten with rods, was once stoned and left for dead. He survived three shipwrecks trying to take the gospels to other nations. (2 Corinthians 11:23–27) And he eventually was beheaded by the Romans.

Was Paul some kind of crazy, arrogant imperialist? What were his motives? Paul himself said:

“If we are “out of our mind,” as some say, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.” (2 Corinthians 5:13–15)

Now if the resurrection of Jesus isn’t historical, and if the religions of those he preached to were as equally valid as his, then what he did was wrong. We can say with confidence he wasted his life. Paul himself said as much:

“I face death every day — yes, just as surely as I boast about you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.” (1 Corinthians 15:30–32)

Now, I’m not at all saying Chau is a modern-day Paul. I’m not in a position to judge his motives or the wisdom of his actions. Other people who understand the complexity of world missions have weighed in, and I’ll defer to their expertise. But what I will say is that he seemed to be motivated by love to share what he believed to be true and important. That’s not arrogance and imperialism. That would be the true motive of any missionary or evangelist.

If we’re arrogant for thinking what we believe is true, then we’re all arrogant.

Think about it for a second. If you say Christianity is evil because it’s exclusive, you too are being exclusive. By making saying something is immoral you’re excluding it by calling it evil. The whole arrogance charge simply backfires. How can you not believe what you think is true?

Allow me to illustrate with a moral analogy. If you believe in global warming and others don’t, does that make you arrogant? You could believe based on the evidence you’ve examined. Or you could believe on the authority of others you trust.

That would make you, in some sense, an exclusivist. In your mind, those who doubt global warming would be believing something false and even harmful. You might even become a climate change “evangelist”. You’ll encourage others to use renewable energy, weatherize their homes, drive hybrids and stump for certain kinds of legislation. You’ll want to share with people the evidence you’ve heard. I mean, the planet depends on it. It’s a big deal. Those beliefs do not make you arrogant, imperialistic or disrespectful.

If there’s evidence for the resurrection — and I believe that there is in spades — then sharing the gospel can’t possibly be arrogant or imperialistic. Considering the implications of the Gospel, the Christian sharing this would be no worse than the outspoken environmentalist.

Christians who don’t share their faith are the real moral failures

You probably have heard of Penn Jillette. He’s best known for his work with fellow magician Teller as half of the team Penn & Teller. He’s also a very outspoken atheist. In an interview, he said that Christians who don’t share their faith are the ones who have a real moral problem. Quoting Penn:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a heaven and a hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward — and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me along and keep your religion to yourself — how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?

“I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

This is what real tolerance looks like. He doesn’t agree with Christianity. But he doesn’t assume that people are jerks for sharing their faith with him. He respects their concern even if he feels they’re mistaken.

As for Chau, I don’t write to make him some kind of a paradigm of what real Christianity should look like. Yet in a day where Christians are so tight-lipped about sharing their faith to avoid being awkward, I gotta say that I at least respect his guts. What I’m getting at is that missions and Christian evangelism is not based on a lack of respect. Nor is it a form of violence against others. Rather, it would be a lack of respect and love to always remain silent.

To Explore More:

Here’s Jillette’s statement on proselytizing, if you’re interested:

And here is the famous Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga on the topic of arrogance and Christian exclusivism:

Erik Manning is graduated of Rhema Bible Training College and is interested in the intersection of culture, evangelism and Christian apologetics. isjesusalive.com

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2A2RnNU

December 30, 2018/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Is Jesus Alive

Learn To Make a Maximal Case For The Resurrection

WHY MAXIMAL DATA?

OBJECTIONS TO MAXIMAL DATA

Recommended resources for this topic:

The Gospels Are Embarrassing for The Apostles

Those Faithless Disciples

The Disciples Were Slow

The Disciples Were Rude

The Going Got Tough, The Disciples Ran

Embarrassing Details In Acts

What Real Christian Propaganda Looks Like

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Without Training, The Church Will Create More Jon Steingards

Why Is God Nice In The Old Testament, But Always Angry In The New Testament?

How Could Steingard Not Know?

A Cultural Recipe For Apostasy

Steingard Is Sawing Off The Branch He’s Sitting On

The Church Needs To Do Better

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

Reading the Texts

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Dealing with Judas’ Death

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Is missionary work full of “cultural imperialism and insane arrogance?”

Was Chau “a violator of human rights?” Are Christian missionaries practicing a “form of violence?”

If there is no resurrection, then all Christian missionaries are wasting their lives.

If we’re arrogant for thinking what we believe is true, then we’re all arrogant.

Christians who don’t share their faith are the real moral failures

QUICK LINKS

FEATURED RESOURCES

SUPPORT CROSSEXAMINED