Tag Archive for: Jesus

Teólogos y pensadores: 12 citas sobre Jesús

Teólogos y pensadores: 12 citas sobre Jesús

Por The Poached Egg

“Jesús es absolutamente único en la historia. En la enseñanza, en el ejemplo, en el carácter, una excepción, una maravilla, y Él mismo es la evidencia del cristianismo” A.T. Pierson

“Así que yo me quedo con Él, no con el que afirma ser sabio, Confucio; o el que afirmaba ser iluminado, Buda; o el que afirmaba ser un profeta, Mahoma; sino con el que afirmaba ser Dios en carne humana. El que declaró: “Antes que Abraham fuese, yo soy” – y lo demostró” Norman Geisler

“En el Antiguo Testamento tenemos a Jesús anunciado. En los Evangelios tenemos a Jesús revelado. En los Hechos tenemos a Jesús predicado. En las epístolas tenemos a Jesús explicado. En el Apocalipsis tenemos a Jesús esperado. En el Apocalipsis, tenemos a Jesús esperando” Desconocido

“Soy historiador, no soy creyente, pero debo confesar como historiador que este pobre predicador de Nazaret es irrevocablemente el centro de la historia. Jesucristo es sencillamente la figura más dominante de toda la historia” H.G. Wells 

“A medida que pasan los siglos, se acumulan las pruebas de que, medido por su efecto en la historia, Jesús es la vida más influyente jamás vivida en este planeta”  Kenneth Scott Latourette

“Sócrates enseñó durante 40 años, Platón durante 50, Aristóteles durante 40, y Jesús por tan solo 3. Sin embargo, la influencia del ministerio de 3 años de Cristo trasciende infinitamente el impacto dejado por los 130 años combinados de enseñanza de estos hombres que estuvieron entre los más grandes filósofos de toda la antigüedad” Anónimo

“Fue este mismo Jesús, el Cristo, quien, entre muchas otras cosas notables, dijo y repitió algo que, procediendo de cualquier otro individuo, lo habría condenado de inmediato como un fanfarrón ególatra o una persona peligrosamente desequilibrada. Cuando dijo que Él mismo resucitaría de entre los muertos, al tercer día después de ser crucificado, dijo algo que solo un tonto se atrevería a decir, si esperaba una mayor devoción de cualquier discípulo, a menos que estuviera seguro de que iba a resucitar. ¡Ningún fundador de ninguna religión del mundo conocido por los hombres se atrevió a decir algo así!” Wilbur Smith

“Muchos están dispuestos a que Cristo sea algo, pero pocos consentirán que Cristo sea todo” Alexander Moody Stuart

“La vida de Jesús fue una tormenta de controversias. Los apóstoles, como los profetas antes que ellos, difícilmente podían pasar un día sin controversia. Pablo dijo que debatió diariamente en el mercado. Evitar la controversia es evitar a Cristo. Podemos tener paz, pero es una paz servil y carnal donde la verdad es asesinada en las calles” R.C. Sproul 

“La evidencia de la vida, muerte y resurrección de nuestro Señor puede ser, y a menudo ha sido, demostrada como satisfactoria; es buena según las reglas comunes para distinguir la evidencia buena de la mala. Miles y decenas de miles de personas la han revisado pieza por pieza con el mismo cuidado con el que cada juez resume un caso importante. Yo mismo lo he hecho muchas veces, no para persuadir a otros sino para satisfacerme a mí mismo. He sido utilizado durante muchos años para estudiar las historias de otros tiempos y para examinar y sopesar la evidencia de aquellos que han escrito sobre ellas, y no conozco ningún hecho en la historia de la humanidad que esté probado por una mejor y más completa evidencia de todo tipo, para el entendimiento de un justo investigador, que la gran señal que Dios nos ha dado de que Cristo murió y resucitó de la muerte” Thomas Arnold

“El mundo moderno detesta la autoridad pero adora la relevancia. Nuestra convicción cristiana es que la Biblia tiene tanto autoridad como relevancia, y que el secreto de ambas es Jesucristo” John Stott 

“En una civilización como la nuestra, creo que todos deben aceptar las afirmaciones de Jesucristo sobre Su vida, o ser culpables de ignorar o evadir la realidad” C.S. Lewis

Recursos recomendados en Español:

Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek

Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek  

 

Blog Original: http://bit.ly/33gJMsw

Traducido por Jorge Gil

Editado por María Andreina Cerrada

/by
Messianic Convergence in the Gospels

Messianic Convergence in the Gospels: A New Way to Frame the Argument from Old Testament Fulfilment

,

Anyone who has spent considerable time studying the gospels can tell that they are literally saturated with Old Testament fulfilment and allusions. Indeed, the early church used two primary lines of argument to establish the Messianic credentials of Jesus of Nazareth — the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and Messianic prophecy. How useful is fulfilment of the Messianic prophecy in the person of Jesus to the purposes of contemporary, twenty-first-century apologists? In this article, I explore a way to frame the argument in a robust and objective way. First, I will summarise my argument, and then I will dig into the details.

A Summary of the Basic Argument

When it comes to the origins of the gospel narratives, there are three contending hypotheses for explaining their origin. These are:

(1) The gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate.

(2) The gospel authors were honestly mistaken in their reporting of the events that they narrate.

(3) The gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events.

Of course, those options could in principle, be correct either individually or in combination with one another. When we discover striking correlations between the gospel narratives and the Old Testament texts (on a level that is unlikely by mere coincidence), then we have evidence against the hypothesis that the gospel authors were honestly mistaken — that is to say, we have positive evidence for design, either on the part of the human authors manipulating the story to impose conformity to the Hebrew Scriptures or on the part of God supernaturally orchestrating the history. The question then becomes, what is the locus of the design?

The first of the above hypotheses — that is, that the gospel authors deliberately fabricated the events that they narrate is significantly undermined when we discover points of historical confirmation of the gospels (a subject that I have written, lectured and debated extensively about elsewhere). I have contended publicly elsewhere that numerous historical points in the gospels can be historically verified and confirmed (e.g., here). This gives rise to an inductive argument for treating the gospel documents as a whole as trustworthy. The numerous points of historical confirmation in the book of Acts, moreover, build us a picture of the pedigree of its author Luke (who also happens to be the author of the third gospel), and thus offers us additional reason to trust what he writes in his gospel. I (and others) have developed that case extensively in various venues, and to argue this is not the primary purpose of the present article.

Having shown the first two of the three options to be improbable, therefore, it is possible to provide evidential support for the third contending hypothesis, namely, that the gospel authors faithfully recorded actual events, and the locus of the design is supernatural divine orchestration of the events to result in convergence between events in Jesus the Messiah’s life and foreshadows written of in the Hebrew Bible. In syllogistic form, this argument can be presented as follows:

Premise 1: The correlation between events recorded in the gospels and Hebrew Scripture is either the product of human design or divine design.

Premise 2: It is not the product of human design.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is the product of divine design.

One can, of course, make the inductive argument I just described for taking the gospels as a whole to be highly reliable. The case, however, is lent even greater force when we can point to specific instances of details in the gospels that are subject to historical confirmation, which also correlates with the Hebrew Bible in some way. We can model this argument probabilistically using Bayesian analysis.

Probabilistic Modelling

The equation given below represents the odds form of Bayes theorem, which is used in developing cumulative cases. Translated, it states that the posterior probability of your hypothesis (H) given the available evidence (E) is equal to the prior probability (given the background information) of the hypothesis being true (expressed as a ratio) multiplied by the ratio of the evidence given the hypothesis against the probability of the evidence given the antithesis.

Imagen1jonathan

Dividing the probability of the evidence given the hypothesis by the probability of the evidence given the antithesis gives you what is referred to in probability theory as the Bayes Factor. The Bayes Factor is a measure of the strength of the evidence and indicates how many times more likely it is that you will observe this evidence given that your hypothesis is true than if it were false. For instance, a Bayes Factor of one hundred indicates that your evidence is one hundred times more likely if your hypothesis is true than if it were false.

This form of reasoning is used routinely in the discipline of forensic science. For instance, the presence of a defendant’s fingerprints on the murder weapon may be taken as evidence for the hypothesis of guilt over the hypothesis of non-guilt because the probability of the defendant’s fingerprints being on the murder weapon is much higher on the hypothesis that the defendant is guilty than on the hypothesis that he is not guilty. This is the very same mode of reasoning that I use when evaluating the evidence for the existence of God and for the truth of the Christian gospel. As we examine the data, I will be using to construct this argument; we will assign each a plausible Bayes factor as a way of modeling our cumulative case. We will then be able to more readily see the strength of the argument as a whole. Please note that there is a degree of subjectivity in these assignments, but I have tried as best as I can to err on the side of caution, and I do not think my estimates are unreasonable. In any case, the reader is invited to plug in his or her own numbers and conduct their own analysis. My goal here is to show how an argument of this sort can be mounted.

The Data

I will now consider several instances where we have specific historical confirmations of details in the gospel that, given the Old Testament backdrop, seems to be a bit too striking to be coincidental.

Example #1: Jesus’ Death at Passover

One historical detail that can scarcely be denied is that Jesus died at the time of Passover. This is a detail attested by all four gospels and implied by Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:7. This is not a detail that the gospel authors (or their sources) plausibly misremembered. So many details in the gospels are connected to Jesus’ death being at the time of Passover (e.g., see John 18:28). It is also supported by the next example we will discuss shortly. I will not here get into the discussion of whether John and the synoptic gospels contradict each other on the precise day on which Jesus is crucified (I have already addressed that here). It is clear that the New Testament authors unanimously considered Jesus to be the ultimate fulfilment of the Passover lamb (see John 1:29; John 1:36; 1 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Peter 1:18-19; Revelation 7:14; and Revelation 12:11). The correspondence, therefore, seems too neat to be the result of coincidence. Christ’s execution by the Romans at the time of Passover is a remarkable ‘coincidence’ that would have been difficult for an impostor to engineer.

One caveat to consider is that there are also other days throughout the year, such as the day of atonement, to which we might attach some special significance if Jesus’ death had landed on those days. I will, therefore, assign a conservative Bayes factor of 50 for this correspondence. Remember, this means that the correlation is 50 times more probable on the hypothesis of design than on the hypothesis of coincidence.

Example #2: Selection of the Passover Lamb

There is an additional interesting connection, not wholly independent of the one just discussed but nonetheless certainly worthy of attention. This has to do with Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem five days before the Passover on which He died. Consider John 12:1-2,12-13:

Six days before the Passover, Jesus, therefore, came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 So they gave a dinner for him there. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him at the table…12 The next day the large crowd that had come to the feast heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem. 13 So they took branches of palm trees and went out to meet him, crying out, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel!”

John here has given us a very specific extraneous detail (which none of the other gospels gives us): Jesus arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, and the following day rode into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey (which would have been five days before the Passover).

Can we confirm John’s accuracy on this? Yes, we can.

Turn over to Mark 11:1-11, which parallels the arrival at Bethany (although Mark does not give us the time-stamp that John provides):

Now when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Untie it and bring it…7 And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it. 8 And many spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut from the fields. 9 And those who went before and those who followed were shouting, “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father, David! Hosanna in the highest!” 11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.

Mark does not tell us that Jesus approached Bethany six days before the Passover, nor that it was the following day that Jesus rode into Jerusalem. However, it appears implicit that they fetched the colt early in the morning — since the disciples fetch the colt, there is the triumphal entry and Jesus and the disciples entered the temple and “looked around at everything” (which was presumably a whole day’s activities). If then, we assume that Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover, then we can begin counting off the days narrated in Mark’s gospel, to see if the narrative synchronizes with that of John.

Verses 12-14 narrate the cursing of the fig tree, which according to verse 12, happened “the following day” (i.e., four days before the Passover, assuming John’s chronology to be correct). Jesus then cleansed the temple, and according to verse 19, “when evening came, they went out of the city.” In verse 20, we read, “As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots.” We are now, therefore at three days before the Passover. In Mark 13, we read of the Olivet discourse on the Mount of Olives. This we can assume took place in the evening, since the Mount of Olives was mid-way between the temple in Jerusalem and Bethany where Jesus and the disciples were staying. This, then, marks the end of three days before the Passover. When we turn over to Mark 14, we read in verse 1, “It was now two days before the Passover.” Mark and John thus calibrate perfectly, thereby corroborating the time-stamp given to us by John.

Having confirmed that Jesus really did enter Jerusalem five days before the Passover, let us now look to the Old Testament to see if we have any point of striking correlation. Passover itself falls on the fifteenth day of the month of Nisan. That means that five days before the Passover falls on the 10th day of Nisan. Now let us turn over to Exodus 12, where God gives instructions to the people of Israel concerning the first Passover. In verse 3, God says to Moses and Aaron,

Tell all the congregation of Israel that on the tenth day of this month [i.e., Nisan] every man shall take a lamb according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household.

Thus, the Passover lamb was to be selected and taken into the household of the men of Israel on the tenth day of the month of Nisan. Given the oft-repeated New Testament imagery of Jesus being the Passover lamb (e.g., 1 Corinthians 5:7), it is thus quite striking that Jesus’ triumphal entrance into Jerusalem and reception by the people happens to fall on the 10th of Nisan, five days before Passover.

How probable is this correlation on the hypothesis that the connection is coincidental? It must be borne in mind that this coincidence is not wholly independent of the previous one since Jesus coming into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 would not matter at all if it weren’t for the fact that he then died subsequently at least around that time. If we take his entry into Jerusalem on Nisan 10 to be significant, we must be assuming that he died right around that time, which means that that one entails the other. The question we can ask, however, is how much additional evidence it provides that Jesus also entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10. Another factor for us to consider is that Passover is a particularly likely time for a Jew to enter Jerusalem and also a time when he could count on ministering to a large crowd of people who had made their pilgrimage to Judea for the feast.

One may object here that a possible explanation of this coincidence is that Jesus Himself, seeing Himself as the fulfilment of the Passover lamb, deliberately entered Jerusalem on Nisan 10th. However, to this, I offer two responses. First, if Jesus saw falsely Himself as Messianic it is far more likely that he would have perceived Himself to be a military leader like Simon Bar Giora, who would lead a revolt against the Roman occupiers, not suffer a humiliating death by crucifixion. Second, the appropriate issue to concern ourselves with is the striking coincidence that it was precisely on the year on which Jesus entered Jerusalem five days before Passover that His death by crucifixion coincidentally took place on the day of Passover.

To be conservative, therefore, I will only assign a Bayes factor of 2 to this fact. Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor from the two examples we have considered is 50 x 2 = 100.

Example #3: Jesus the First Fruits

In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul says of Christ that he is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”

What is being alluded to here? For the answer, we turn to Leviticus 23:9-14, in which we read of the feast of first fruits.

9 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 10 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, When you come into the land that I give you and reap its harvest, you shall bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest to the priest, 11 And he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, so that you may be accepted. On the day after the Sabbath, the priest shall wave it. 12 And on the day when you wave the sheaf, you shall offer a male lamb a year old without blemish as a burnt offering to the Lord. 13 And the grain offering with it shall be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil, a food offering to the Lord with a pleasing aroma, and the drink offering with it shall be of wine, a fourth of a hin. 14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

The feast of firstfruits is the next Jewish feast following the feasts of Passover and unleavened bread and had to do with the barley harvest, which preceded the slightly later wheat harvest (the former arrived in March / April; the latter around May, according to our calendars). The latter of those was associated with the feast of Weeks (Pentecost). God, therefore, instructed the people of Israel that prior to reaping the barley harvest they were to wave before the Lord a sheaf of the first grain. This would symbolize that the sheaf was representative of the whole crop. It represented their trust that the God who had given them the firstfruits would also bless the rest of the harvest.

How, then, does Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:20, link Jesus to the feast of first fruits? Christ was the first fruits of the resurrection, having been raised prior to the general resurrection at the end of time. Although previous people (e.g., Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter) had been raised from death, those individuals were not raised to glory and immortality. Eventually, they would die again. Jesus, by contrast, was the first person in all of history to be raised to glory and immortality, with a body transformed such that it was no longer subject to decay or death. Thus, he is the ‘sheaf’ that is waved before the Lord, the first fruits of the harvest.

Now, what is particularly striking is the day on which the feast of first fruits was to take place. According to Leviticus 23:11b, it was to happen “the day after the Sabbath” following Passover. That would be Sunday! It can thus hardly be a coincidence that Christ was raised on the Sunday following the Passover. When we consider the day that Jesus was claimed to be raised as first fruit from among the dead (the Sunday following Passover), we have yet another striking coincidence.

It is largely taken for granted among scholars that the disciples had experiences following Jesus’ death, which they interpreted to be the raised Christ — scholars are largely in agreement that the disciples did not deliberately lie about having seen Jesus raised from the dead. We also have strong evidence that the claim was that Jesus rose from the dead on the Sunday following His crucifixion — not only is it reported in all four gospels (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 24:1, John 20:1), but there is also the widespread switch from observing the Sabbath to observance of the Lord’s day (Sunday) in the first century. One might object that the gospels only report the discovery of the empty tomb and the appearances taking place on the Sunday but do not tell us when exactly Jesus was raised. However, Jesus repeatedly states that His resurrection will take place “on the third day,” which would have to be the Sunday since His death was on a Friday. Further evidence that the earliest apostolic proclamation was that Jesus had been raised on the Sunday following His death is the allusion in 1 Corinthians 15:4 to Jesus being “raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” Indeed, Paul’s allusion in verse 20 of the same chapter to Christ being the firstfruits from among the dead may indicate what Paul means by Christ’s resurrection on the third day being “in accordance with the Scriptures.”

It must be stated at this point that the exact interpretation of Leviticus 23:11b was disputed by first-century Jewish interpreters. Most Pharisees took this day to be the day after the annual Sabbath, rather than the weekly Sabbath — that is, the day after the 15th of Nisan, on which fell the feast of unleavened bread (the Jews were not permitted to work on this day according to Leviticus 23:7). They would thus observe the firstfruits offering on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of the day of the week. Here is what the first-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus tells us [Antiquities 3:10:5-6]:

But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day, they do not touch them.

A minority of Pharisees, and the Sadducees, however, maintained that the offering of first-fruits was to take place the day after the weekly Sabbath which falls during the feast of unleavened bread. According to this view, the firstfruits offering always took place on a Sunday. This view makes more sense to me Biblically because Leviticus 23:15-16 gives the following instruction about when the feast of firstfruits is to be observed:

15 “You shall count seven full weeks from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering. 16 You shall count fifty days to the day after the seventh Sabbath. Then you shall present a grain offering of new grain to the Lord.

For the day after the seventh Sabbath to equal exactly 50 days, one has to begin counting from the day after the weekly Sabbath.

Furthermore, according to the gospels, the day following Jesus’ death was itself a weekly Sabbath. For example, in John 19:31, we are told,

Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away.

Likewise, Mark 15:42-43 tells us,

42 And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath, 43 Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

The festival of first fruits, therefore, would have to have been celebrated the day following the Sabbath (given the Jewish regulations about what could or could not be performed on the Sabbath). This entails that the Sunday on which Jesus was raised is indeed the feast of first fruits.

Moreover, as long as the second temple stood (i.e., prior to A.D. 70) and the Sadducees were in charge, their interpretation prevailed, and the feast of firstfruits was recognized the day following the first weekly Sabbath after Passover.

Further evidence that the gospel authors understood Jesus to be fulfilling the first fruits comes from Acts 2, where we read that the Holy Spirit comes upon the disciples at the time of Pentecost, which fulfils further symbolism relating to the feast of Pentecost that is outlined in Leviticus 23 (which I will not dwell upon here).

What Bayes factor might we assign to this piece of evidence? Of course, this piece of evidence is not wholly independent of the fact that Jesus’ death takes place at the time of Passover. There are also only seven days in the week. For these reasons, I assign a conservative Bayes factor of 5. So far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 = 500.

Example #4: The Crucifixion

Psalm 22 contains a remarkable text which, centuries before crucifixion was even invented, contains a description of the Messiah’s sufferings that strikingly resemble a crucifixion scene. Consider this excerpt from verses 12-18:

12 Many bulls encompass me; strong bulls of Bashan surround me; 13, they open wide their mouths at me, like a ravening and roaring lion. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within my breast; 15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to my jaws; you lay me in the dust of death. 16 For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet— 17 I can count all my bones— they stare and gloat over me; 18 they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.

Dislocation of bones, heart failure, lack of strength, dehydration, and the piercing of the hands and feet are all apt descriptions of a crucifixion scene, not to mention the dividing of his garments and the casting of lots — crucifixion victims would be stripped naked as part of their humiliation. This execution also appears to be public since people stare and gloat over him. For a much more detailed description of the evidence for the Messianic nature of this text, I refer interested readers to Mike Winger’s video on the subject of Psalm 22, or this discussion between Dr. James White and Dr. Michael Brown on the topic. The Messianic interpretation of Psalm 22 is also not a Christian invention but can be found in early Jewish sources (for documentation, see this article).

For this fact, I think it is fair to assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000 (for justification of this Bayes factor, see McGrew, L. (2013) Probabilistic Issues Concerning Jesus of Nazareth and Messianic Death Prophecies. Philosophia Christi 15:311-328.

Thus far, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 = 500,000

Example #5: The Name Jesus

The name Jesus is itself very significant. The reason for calling him Jesus is given in Matthew 1:21:

…you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.

Fittingly, Jesus’ name (the same name as Joshua) means “Yahweh is salvation.” Already, this is a striking coincidence.

A second reason why the name Jesus is significant is that a certain Joshua in the Old Testament replaces Moses in leading God’s people into the promised land. Moses represents the embodiment of the law. The law (embodied by Moses) was unable to lead God’s people into the promised land and so was replaced by Joshua.

A third correspondence is to another Joshua in the book of Zechariah and chapter 6. In Zechariah 6:9-13, we read,

9 And the word of the Lord came to me: 10 “Take from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon, and go the same day to the house of Josiah, the son of Zephaniah. 11 Take from them silver and gold, and make a crown, and set it on the head of Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, the high priest. 12 And say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord. 13 It is he who shall build the temple of the Lord and shall bear royal honor and shall sit and rule on his throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.”’

This individual is described as “the man whose name is the Branch,” which is a Messianic title used elsewhere (e.g., Zechariah 3:8; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15). He is also given the office of both priest and king, a dual office which the Messiah is also said to fulfil (e.g., Psalm 110:4) whereas others were not permitted to occupy both offices.

In a study of 2625 male Jewish names from first-century Palestine (from documentary sources and ossuaries), 99 are reported to bear the name Jesus/Joshua (it being the sixth most popular name). That is approximately 3.77% of the Jewish male population. I will conservatively assign a Bayes factor to this piece of evidence of 2, taking our cumulative Bayes factor to 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 = 1000,000.

Example 6

Yet another striking coincidence is the fact that Christianity became the dominant international world religion that it became. Until 313 A.D., the Christian church was the persecuted minority, and powerful rulers and officials attempted to stamp out the Christian religion, destroy its Scriptures and its people. There was a high price to pay for being a follower of Jesus, and your fate could include being nailed to a cross, burned alive, or fed to wild animals. The probability that Christianity would become a dominant global religion was, therefore, vanishingly small. However, this is exactly what was predicted in various passages throughout the Old Testament, namely, that the Messiah would bring representatives of all nations to a recognition and worship of the God of Israel.

As an example, consider Isaiah 49:6:

He says: “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”

Therefore, on the hypothesis that a given individual is the promised Messiah, the probability that they would bring representatives of all nations of the world to worship the God of Israel is approximately equal to one, whereas on the hypothesis that Jesus is not the Messiah, the probability is vanishingly small. In all history, only Jesus has accomplished this fete. I will assign a conservative Bayes factor of 1000.

At this point, our cumulative Bayes factor is 50 x 2 x 5 x 1000 x 2 x 1000 = 1000,000,000

Conclusion

Various other examples could be given, but I will stop the present analysis at this point. The point of this article was simply to show how a cumulative case can be constructed for the truth of Christianity based upon these striking instances of convergence between the life of Jesus and Old Testament texts in a manner that seems to point towards the conclusion of design rather than coincidence. Since the examples given above enjoy strong historical corroboration, we can safely rule out the human design as being responsible for these correspondences. We, therefore, have good evidence for divine design, and therefore the truth of Christianity.

Of course, it is necessary when doing a Bayesian analysis to give an estimate of the prior probability. Prior probability relates to the intrinsic plausibility of a proposition before the evidence is considered. Normally the prior probability will be somewhere between zero and one. A prior probability of one means that the conclusion is certain. For instance, the fact that two added to two is equal to four has a prior probability of one. It is true by definition. A prior probability of zero, conversely, means that the hypothesis entails some sort of logical contradiction (such as the concept of a married bachelor) and thus cannot be overcome by any amount of evidence. Priors can be established on the basis of past information. For example, suppose we want to know the odds that a particular individual won last week’s Mega Millions jackpot in the United States. The prior probability would be set at 1 in 302.6 million since those are the odds that any individual lottery participant, chosen at random, would win the Mega Millions jackpot. That is a low prior probability, but it could be overcome if the supposed winner were to subsequently quit his job and start routinely investing in private jets, sports cars, and expensive vacations. Perhaps he could even show us his bank statement or the documentary evidence of his winnings. Those different pieces of evidence, taken together, would stack up to provide powerful confirmatory evidence sufficient to overcome a very small prior probability to yield a high posterior probability that the individual did indeed win the Mega Millions jackpot. In other situations, setting an objective prior is more tricky, and in those cases, priors may be determined by a more subjective assessment.

If we suppose for argument’s sake that the prior probability of God sovereignly orchestrating the history is as low as 1 in 10,000,000, this leads us to a posterior probability of 0.99 of the hypothesis being true. Of course, this figure will be highly dependent on the Bayes Factors we have assigned to each piece of evidence. This is, of course, only a mathematical tool for modelling how a cumulative case can provide powerful evidence for our hypothesis, and we haven’t even considered all of the relevant data. I invite readers to plug in their own numbers and see what conclusion they arrive at.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Jesus of the Old Testament in the Gospel of John mp3 by Thomas Howe

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

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

World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson

The Bodily Nature of Jesus’ Resurrection CD by Gary Habermas 

Historical Evidences for the Resurrection (Mp3) by Gary Habermas

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

 

Dr. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a Bachelor’s degree (with Honors) in forensic biology, a Master’s (M.Res) degree in evolutionary biology, a second Master’s degree in medical and molecular bioscience, and a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. Currently, he is an assistant professor of biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie is a contributor to various apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular online webinars, as well as assist Christians who are wrestling with doubts. Dr. McLatchie has participated in more than thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has spoken internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa promoting an intelligent, reflective and evidence-based Christian faith.

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

Is Hell Torment or Torture and Is there a Difference?

By Al Serrato

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

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

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

,

By Wintery Knight

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

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

Introduction:

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

Fact #1: the burial of Jesus following his crucifixion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

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

 

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

/by
Un argumento psicológico contra la teoría de las alucinaciones de Gerd Lüdemann sobre la Resurrección de Jesús

Un argumento psicológico contra la teoría de las alucinaciones de Gerd Lüdemann sobre la Resurrección de Jesús

Por Kike Medina

Introducción:

Como es común entre ciertos círculos ateos (sobre todo en redes sociales) podemos encontrar muchas objeciones hacia la existencia de Jesús, sus milagros y su resurrección; Algunas objeciones son decentes y otras son verdaderamente pésicas, formuladas con mucho desconocimiento filosófico y argumentativo, acompañado de ciertas actitudes y prejuicios negativos hacia los cristianos y su fe.

Pero hay una objeción que ha ganado fuerza durante los últimos años y ha sido objeto de debate entre muchos apologistas de alto prestigio, sobre todo porque forma parte de una especie de “grupo” de objeciones hacia la resurrección de Jesús y es aquella que postula que los apóstoles y discípulos de Jesús alucinaron al verlo luego de haber muerto por crucifixión y resucitado tres días después.

La teoría de las alucinaciones propuesta por el historiador Gerd Lüdemann, parece ser consistente y probablemente una objeción que puede tambalear los cimientos de la fe de muchas personas, sobre todo a aquellas que no están muy bien instruidas en la defensa de la fe. Muchos la han abordado desde distintas perspectivas y han creado objeciones, sobre todo desde una perspectiva histórica-metodológica. Sin embargo, hasta donde sé, no se ha desarrollado una objeción que va más acorde a la naturaleza de la teoría de Lüdemann.

El objetivo principal de este escrito es abordar la teoría desde un punto de vista psicológico, para ver si realmente es consistente con lo que objeta y así poder dar una herramienta más para todos aquellos que recién abordan esta teoría y recién inician en la defensa de la fe.

La teoría de las alucinaciones

Antes de empezar a abordar de lleno con la objeción de Lüdemann, hay que hacer dos importantes aclaraciones: Sigo el mismo pensamiento del Dr.Craig cuando él dice que “está de acuerdo con Lüdemann en que la resurrección de Jesús es el punto central de la religión cristiana”, y que “la tarea del historiador es muy parecida a la del abogado litigante; examinar a los testigos para reconstruir el curso más probable de los acontecimientos”.[1] En efecto, quizá no podemos saber si un hecho histórico pasó con una certeza del cien por ciento, pero podemos hacer historia recopilando datos, formulando hipótesis y ver cuál de todas nuestras explicaciones es la más razonable.

Ahora bien, parece que Lüdemann encuentra cierta satisfacción psicológica en su propia teoría, pues al negar a Cristo es común que una persona sienta cierta culpa por haber abandonado un estilo de vida, como le puede suceder a un empleado que es despedido de una mega empresa de alto nivel. Sin embargo, esto es irrelevante, dado que, si Lüdemann realizó tal explicación de la resurrección de Jesús y la experiencia de los discípulos debido a esa culpa, no valoraremos su veracidad partiendo desde este punto, pues eso sería solo un ataque personal, además de que su estado emocional y mental también carece de importancia para este análisis.

La teoría de las alucinaciones es desarrollada partiendo desde el punto de vista anímico y mental de los discípulos. Por ejemplo, la explicación de la alucinación de Pedro, es presentada de la siguiente manera:

Bajo la impresión de la proclamación y muerte de Jesús, finalmente despertó en Pedro la fe. De ese modo, el Jesús crucificado demostró ser el Jesús viviente para que Pedro pudiera volver a presentarse ante él y esta vez con profunda claridad. La palabra de perdón de Dios presente en la obra de Jesús.[2]

Supongamos que es totalmente válido; sería lógico creer que Pedro pudo haber alucinado a Jesús debido a su culpa, pues lo había negado tres veces. Luego de esto, tal alucinación fue contagiada hacia otras personas que no compartían el trauma de Pedro.

Luego de que se creara la leyenda de la tumba vacía y que Jesús se había aparecido a las mujeres en la misma tumba, Pablo luchaba internamente con la culpa mientras trabajaba bajo el yugo de la ley y su celo al perseguir cristianos era una manifestación de una atracción secreta por el mensaje cristiano. Lüdemann ofrece esta explicación sobre la “alucinación” de Pablo:

Si uno hubiera podido analizar a Pablo antes de su visión de Damasco, el análisis probablemente habría mostrado una fuerte inclinación hacia Cristo en su subconsciente. De hecho, la suposición de que era inconscientemente cristiano ya no es así tan descabellado […] En el camino de Damasco, la lucha reprimida estalló en una alucinación de Jesús, lo que resultó en la conversión total de Pablo a la fe que una vez persiguió. El complejo de culpa que había surgido con la persecución se resolvió mediante la certeza de estar en Cristo.[3]

De hecho, desconozco si Lüdemann tiene conocimientos psicoanalíticos, pero esta explicación sobre Pablo parece una explicación del mecanismo de defensa formación reactiva, el cuál consiste en transformar una emoción o un impulso en su contrario; el odio sería amor, la enemistad a amistad, tolerancia en intolerancia, etc. Y esto sucede porque el sujeto tiene dificultades para manejarlas y se protege inconscientemente con este mecanismo de defensa. Pero esto lo pasaremos por alto, pues no pretendo hacer un análisis psicoanalítico.

Experiencias delirantes y alucinatorias

El Manual Diagnóstico y Estadístico de los Trastornos Mentales, clasifica a algunos trastornos que tienen como característica principal los delirios y las alucinaciones. Podemos encontrar algunos trastornos como el trastorno delirante, trastorno psicótico, esquizofreniforme, esquizofrénico, etc. También, tiene en cuenta características claves que definen los trastornos psicóticos como son, como se mencionó anteriormente, los delirios y alucinaciones.

Los delirios son creencias fijas que no son susceptibles de cambio a la luz de las pruebas en su contra. El contenido de los delirios puede incluir varios temas como persecuciones (es decir, la creencia de que uno va a ser perjudicado, acosado, perseguido, etc, por un individuo u organización), referenciales (es decir, la creencia de que ciertos gestos, comentarios, señales del medio ambiente, etc, se dirigen a uno mismo), de grandeza (es decir, cuando el sujeto cree que tiene habilidades ,riqueza o fama excepcionales), somáticos (es decir, preocupaciones referente a la salud y al funcionamiento de los órganos), etc.

Por otro lado, las alucinaciones son percepciones que tienen lugar sin la presencia de un estímulo externo. Son vívidas y claras, con toda la fuerza y el impacto de las percepciones normales, y no están sujetas al control voluntario. Pueden darse en cualquier modalidad sensorial, pero las alucinaciones auditivas habitualmente se experimentan en forma de voces, conocidas o desconocidas, que se perciben como diferentes del propio pensamiento. Las alucinaciones deben tener lugar en el contexto de un adecuado nivel de conciencia; aquellas que tienen lugar al quedarse uno dormido o al despertar se considera que está dentro del rango de las experiencias normales.

Algo que hay que destacar es que el mismo DSM-IV aclara que las alucinaciones pueden ser una parte normal de la experiencia religiosa en determinados contextos culturales.[4]

Tal parece que, hasta este punto, ya podemos descartar la teoría de las alucinaciones de Lüdemann, pues si hemos de valorar adecuadamente las alucinaciones de un individuo, pues la experiencia post-mortem de los discípulos era una experiencia normal y justificada, dado que es una experiencia religiosa, entendida en su tiempo y contexto. Sin mencionar, que no podemos diagnosticar como una “alucinación” a priori la experiencia de una persona sin, por lo menos, hacer una corta entrevista respecto a su experiencia, como se hace clínicamente. Pero este no será el caso, pues trataré de dar un argumento formal desde mi perspectiva como psicólogo.

La epistemología de las alucinaciones

Si analizamos correctamente los tipos de trastornos que son característicos por su naturaleza delirante y alucinatoria, nos daremos cuenta de que cada sujeto tiene experiencias totalmente distintas entre sí. Es decir, cuando un sujeto tiene una alucinación o un delirio, puede tener ciertas características en común para compartir con otros sujetos delirantes, sin embargo, su experiencia no es la misma pues cada sujeto la experimenta de forma diferente.

Por ejemplo, los sujetos que sufren de alucinaciones persecutorias tienen características experienciales en común como creer que alguien está conspirando en su contra, o que le engañan, lo espían o persiguen. Sin embargo, cada experiencia alucinatoria es epistémicamente distinta entre sí. Quizá un sujeto alucina con que lo están espiando un grupo de personas más allá de la realidad, sin cuerpo físico, mientras que otro sujeto piensa que es espiado por el gobierno o por su propia pareja.

Lo mismo sucede con las personas que tienen delirios, por ejemplo, somáticos. Los sujetos podrán tener características experienciales en común, como expresar una pérdida de control sobre la mente o el cuerpo, o que sus propios pensamientos han sido robados. Pero estas experiencias serán epistémicamente distintas entre sí, pues un sujeto puede experimentar la “pérdida de la mente” de una forma distinta a la de otro sujeto, o incluso podrían diferir entre causas como el “ladrón de sus pensamientos o mente”.

Podemos encontrar un caso clínico de trastorno delirante por consumo de cannabis, donde esta persona tiene antecedentes psiquiátricos durante los últimos dos años. El paciente se quejaba de dolor abdominal y en el pecho, según él, ocasionado por telequinesia, pues una vecina que era bruja se lo estaba provocando. Además de esto, colocaba por toda la casa diversos objetos para ahuyentar los malos espíritus.[5]

Por otro lado, tenemos el caso clínico de un hombre con trastorno delirante, donde afirmaba que, los policías y carabineros que vivían en su mismo edificio estaban perjudicándole sólo por simpatizar con una ideología diferente a ellos. Además, refiere que hablaban de él en la televisión y que el gas estaba envenenado, incluyendo el agua, por lo que tenía que comprar agua envasada y pedir comida por teléfono.[6]

Si analizamos correctamente estos dos casos, podemos ver que ambos sufren delirios de persecución, comparten características experienciales en común como ser conspirado por un tercero, y evitar ciertas actividades diarias por la creencia de que eran parte de la conspiración. Sin embargo, ambas experiencias son epistémicamente distintas entre sí, pues los “conspiradores” son distintos y no actúan de la misma manera, ni utilizan las mismas “formas” o “herramientas” para “conspirar” contra los pacientes mencionados.

La epistemología de la experiencia post-mortem de los discípulos

Ahora, vamos a aplicar el mismo análisis a las experiencias de los discípulos cuando vieron a Jesús nuevamente con vida. Pero antes, hay que anotar algo pues uno puede preguntar: ¿no es verdad que hay diferencias entre los relatos de la resurrección? Por ejemplo, Mateo y Marcos relatan que un ángel les habló a las mujeres, mientras que Lúcas y Juan dicen que había dos ángeles en la tumba.[7] ¿No es esta una experiencia epistémicamente distinta entre sujetos y, por lo tanto, sería un caso legítimo de alucinación o delirio?

Bueno, hay que aclarar que el caso de la experiencia respecto a los ángeles es algo secundario, pues la alucinación analizada en este escrito es la de la visión de Jesús por parte de sus discípulos. Por lo que sería irrelevante si fue o no una alucinación en todo el sentido de la palabra. Ahora, podemos rescatar un hecho importante sobre el caso de la resurrección y es que en múltiples ocasiones y bajo varias circunstancias, diferentes individuos y grupos de personas, experimentaron apariciones de Jesús vivo de entre los muertos.

Un caso experiencial que podemos encontrar en la biblia es el de Tomás, quien no estaba con los discípulos cuando había llegado Jesús, relatado en Juan 20:24-31. Tomás no creía lo que los discípulos le decían, habían visto a Jesús nuevamente. Sin embargo, Tomás objetaba que mientras no viera la marca de los clavos en sus manos y no sintiera su mano en su costado no creería. Luego de una semana, Jesús se apareció a los doce, y fue cuando le dijo a Tomás que tocara sus manos y su costado. Entonces él creyó.

Como podemos observar, la experiencia de Tomás fue totalmente distinta en primera persona (fue él quien tocó sus manos y su costado) a la de los demás discípulos. Sin embargo, esto no pudo haber sido una alucinación, ya que para que cumpla su naturaleza alucinógena, tendría que haber sido una persona distinta, en situaciones distintas, pues estaban todos reunidos y era Jesús mismo.

En otras palabras, la experiencia post-mortem no puede tratarse de una alucinación, pues se observó a la misma persona (Jesús), en la misma situación (los discípulos reunidos) e incluso las mismas palabras escuchadas (“la paz sea con ustedes”, “porque me has visto, has creído…”).

El argumento

Luego del análisis mencionado anteriormente y habiendo explicado que las alucinaciones son epistémicamente distintas entre sí, aunque existan características en común, y que las experiencias de los discípulos, recalcando la de Tomás, son la misma, podríamos formalizar un argumento de la siguiente manera.

1.- Si las experiencias alucinatorias son epistémicamente distintas entre sujetos, entonces los apóstoles no pudieron haber tenido la misma experiencia alucinatoria.

2.- Los apóstoles tuvieron la misma experiencia post-mortem, pues se trata de la misma persona (Jesús) y la misma circunstancia (discípulos reunidos).

3.- Por lo tanto, los apóstoles no pudieron haber tenido una alucinación.

4.- Por lo tanto, la teoría de las alucinaciones es falsa.

Pero ¿no es verdad que también se apareció a otras personas quienes estaban en situaciones y circunstancias distintas? En efecto, incluso la experiencia pudo haber sido muy distinta a la de los apóstoles. Sin embargo, aún sigue tratándose de la misma persona y la misma creencia de haber resucitado luego de haber sido ejecutado por la corte Romana.

Ahora bien, cabe mencionar que las experiencias alucinógenas no son sólo experiencias epistémicamente distintas entre sujetos, sino que también son privadas. Es decir, cada alucinación es vivida enteramente en y sólo en primera persona, nunca son experimentadas en grupo. ¿Esto quiere decir que las alucinaciones grupales no existen? Efectivamente, las experiencias grupales no existen, si por grupal se entiende como un conjunto de X cantidad de personas, experimentando exactamente lo mismo, al mismo tiempo o que incluso tengan el mismo desorden psicótico, o que hayan ingerido la misma sustancia en la misma cantidad. De otra forma no puede ser considerado una “alucinación grupal”. Esto es ridículamente improbable.

Así que, siguiendo con el argumento anterior, podríamos reformularlo de la siguiente manera:

1.- Si las experiencias alucinatorias son epistémicamente distintas entre sí y son experiencias privadas, entonces los apóstoles no pudieron haber tenido la misma experiencia post-mortem de Jesús.

2.- Los apóstoles sí tuvieron la misma experiencia post-mortem de la misma persona de Jesús.

3.- Por lo tanto, las experiencias de los apóstoles no son epistémicamente distintas entre sí ni fueron experiencias privadas. Por lo que no se consideran alucinaciones.

4.- Por lo tanto, los apóstoles no tuvieron una alucinación.

5.- Por lo tanto, la teoría de las alucinaciones es falsa.

Conclusión 

Es muy probable que este argumento no sea lo suficientemente lógico y que haga agua por muchos lados, pues está claro que se requiere explicar muchas cosas de naturaleza psicológicas como delirios extravagantes, comorbilidad entre trastornos, etc. Pero la intención desde un inicio fue no extenderse en explicar cada término en profundidad.

Quizá este argumento no sea el definitivo contra toda objeción de naturaleza psicológica por parte de ateos, ya que siempre encontraremos objeciones como “los cristianos son esquizofrénicos porque escuchan la voz de Dios” o simplemente nos seguirán llamando neuróticos. Pero, cualquier psicólogo serio sabe que para poder diagnosticar a una persona con algún trastorno o poder concluir clínicamente que una persona tuvo una alucinación genuina, se necesitan estudios y entrevistas en condiciones. Pero esto es entendible, pues estamos acostumbrados a usar estos términos para cualquier situación fuera de lo normal; “estás alucinando”, “puros delirios tuyos”.

De igual manera, abro la invitación a colegas para que sigan el trabajo establecido en este escrito para reforzarlo o para formular otro argumento de naturaleza psicológica para su uso en la apologética actual y futura ya que, desafortunadamente, la psicología es atacada constantemente por ciertos círculos cristianos y casi no tiene presencia dentro de la apologética. Pero ese tema será tratado en otra ocasión.

Referencias:

[1] Lane Craig, William, Visiones de Jesús: una evaluación crítica de la hipótesis de alucinación de Gerd Lüdemann. Disponible en https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/historical-jesus/visions-of-jesus-a-critical-assessment-of-gerd-ludemanns-hallucination-hypo/

[2] Ídem.

[3] Ídem.

[4] APA, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5ta, ed) Pp.87

[5] Gúrpide, Caso clínico; trastorno delirante en consumidor de cannabis, disponible en: http://www.madrid.org/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&blobheadername2=cadena&blobheadervalue1=filename%3Dcaso9-+CANNABIS+CASOS+CLINICOS-18.pdf&blobheadervalue2=language%3Des%26site%3DPortalSalud&blobkey=id&blobable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1202790953505&ssbinary=true

[6] Diaz, Mancilla, Ortíz & Osorio, Caso clínico de trastorno delirante, disponible en: http://docs.bvsalud.org/biblioref/2018/12/967562/208-216.pdf

[7] Hernández de Alba, Claudia, Las contradicciones en el relato de la resurrección, disponible en: https://hoy.com.do/las-contradicciones-en-el-relato-de-resurreccion/

 

Kike Medina, radica en México, licenciado en psicología, se dedica al estudio de la apologética. Co-fundador del proyecto “Apologeeks” y es parte del equipo de Filósofo Cristiano. 

/by
Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

Sacrifice and Redemption in the Skywalker Saga

By Timothy Fox

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

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

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

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

Our Redemption

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

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

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

Turn and Live

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

/by
Jesus: The Greater Moses

Jesus: The Greater Moses

,

By Ryan Leasure

An untrained eye might miss it, but the Old Testament, properly read, points to Jesus. From Genesis forward, we see reference after reference to a coming Messiah who would one day crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15).

Certainly the covenants with both Abraham (Gen. 12, 15, 17) and David (2 Sam. 7) point to a coming Messiah, but it’s another covenant mediator I want to draw our attention to — Moses. Outside of Abraham, Moses is probably the most significant figure in the Old Testament, because it was through Moses that God gave his Law to the nation of Israel.

As special as Moses was, though, God promised Israel that he would send another prophet who was going to be just as, if not more, significant than Moses himself.

The Promise of A Future Prophet Like Moses

As Israel approached the end of its forty years in the wilderness, God made a promise to them about a future prophet to come. We read Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 18:

The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him… The LORD said to me: “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him” (v. 15-18).

I can only imagine that at this moment, Israel was fearful of what they were going to do after Moses departed. After all, the people relied on Moses to hear from God as they didn’t dare approach Him themselves. But what would a prophet like Moses look like? Numbers 12:6-8 gives us a clue. The text reads:

Listen to my words: “When there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, reveal myself to them in visions, I speak to them in dreams. But this is not true of my servant Moses; he is faithful in all my house. With him, I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the form of the LORD.”

Notice the LORD’s words here in response to Miram and Aaron’s complaints about Moses. The LORD says that Moses is not only a prophet; he’s an exulted prophet. Other prophets only get dreams or visions from God. But Moses can see God and speak with him face to face.

Did the Future Prophet Come?

Before we can answer this question, I need to address Mosaic authorship briefly. I realize several folks reject that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, but I am not one of them. After all, it seems as if Jesus was persuaded of Mosaic authorship (Jn. 5:46-47; Mk. 10:3-5; 7:10; 12:26; Mt. 8:4; Lk. 16:29).

Nobody, however, disputes that someone else wrote the end of the Pentateuch which describes Moses’ death. While the dating of the end of the Pentateuch isn’t clear cut, most commentators lean toward the post-exilic era (between 500-400 BC). Meaning, whoever wrote the ending did so about 1,000 years after Moses. We know it wasn’t soon after Moses because the author tells us that no one even knows where Moses’ body is buried (Deuteronomy. 34:6).

I raise this authorship and dating issue because the person who penned Deuteronomy 34 wasn’t convinced that the prophet like Moses had come yet. Verses 10-12 state:

Since then (the time of Moses), no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt — to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of Israel.

As far as the author of Deuteronomy 34 goes, the prophet promised in Deuteronomy 18 had yet to come. Even great prophets like Elijah, Elisha, or Isaiah didn’t make the cut. No, Israel still waited patiently for the prophet who would communicate with God face to face, speak the very words of God, and perform public miracles. Certain prophets had met some of the criteria, but none had met all of them.

Jesus: The Prophet Like Moses

It’s no wonder that so many first-century Jews expected the Messiah to be the great Prophet. After Jesus fed the 5,000, we read in John 6:14, “After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” In other words, these people recognized that the author of Deuteronomy 34 was correct. A prophet like Moses had yet to come at that point. But he’s here now!

Peter makes the connection abundantly clear in Acts 3. While preaching to a crowd in Jerusalem, Peter proclaimed:

Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer. Repent, then, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord…and that he may send the Messiah, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. For Moses said, The Lord, your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you.

Of course, this Jewish audience would have been familiar with Deuteronomy 18. Peter emphatically tells the crowd that the great Prophet like Moses has finally come. It’s Jesus of Nazareth.

After all, Jesus meets all the criteria. As the Son of God, he’s the only one who had communicated with God face-to-face. As John 1:18 tells us, “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship to the Father.” Furthermore, he not only communicated the very words of God; he was the Word of God incarnate (Jn. 1). And, of course, his public miracles are well documented.

Similarities Between Jesus And Moses

The prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 states that the coming prophet would be like Moses. But in what sense? Consider some of the similarities now:

Both were born under death decree (Ex. 1-2; Mt. 2:16-18).

Both escape into the heart of Egypt (Ex. 2; Mt. 2:13-15).

Both are described in detail in four books, beginning with their births and ending with their deaths (Exodus—Deuteronomy; Matthew—John).

Both were covenant mediators (Moses of the Old, Jesus of the New).

Both gave or received instruction on a mountain (Ex. 20; Mt. 5-7)

Both are transfigured on a mountain (Ex. 34:29-35; Mk. 9:2-13)

Both are isolated for 40 days without food or water (Ex. 34:28; Mt. 4:2)

Both are rebelled against by Israelites (Num. 16; Lk. 22-23).

Truly, Jesus was the prophet like Moses.

Differences Between Jesus And Moses

Despite their similarities, it’s their differences that matter the most. Consider these two:

First, like any prophet, Moses repeatedly said, “thus saith the LORD.” The LORD had communicated to him in some form or fashion, and he then communicated those same words to the people.

Jesus, on the other hand, never used the phrase “thus saith the LORD.” Instead, he said something radical — “truly, truly, I say unto you.” In other words, Jesus didn’t need to receive a word from the LORD because he was the LORD himself! Jesus spoke with authority, unlike any other prophet — including Moses.

Second, God accepted Jesus’ atoning sacrifice but not Moses’. In Exodus 32, after Israel sinned by worshipping the golden calf, God was going to consume them. Moses, however, sought to spare the people by offering up himself as an atoning sacrifice. We read in verses 30-33:

The next day Moses said to the people, You have sinned a great sin. And now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin. So Moses returned to the LORD and said, Alas, this people has sinned a great sin. They have made for themselves gods of gold. But now, if you will forgive their sin — but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written. But the LORD said to Moses, Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.

Even at this early stage, Moses recognized atonement must be made for Israel’s sins, and thus he offers up himself! But God rejected his offer. After all, Moses himself was just a man — a sinful one at that. He couldn’t possibly atone for the people’s sins.

But Jesus could. Being divine and sinless, Jesus could bear the sins of the world. And unlike Moses, God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice and demonstrated his acceptance by raising him from the dead.

So, while Jesus was a prophet like Moses, he was certainly greater.

Jesus Is Greater Than Moses

The author of Hebrews saw this comparison and didn’t hesitate to elevate Jesus above Moses. His words seem an appropriate ending to this article:

Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house (Heb. 3:1-5).

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The Jesus of the Old Testament in the Gospel of John mp3 by Thomas Howe

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

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

World Religions: What Makes Jesus Unique? mp3 by Ron Carlson

Historical Evidences for the Resurrection (Mp3) by Gary Habermas

 

Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/30b2ccw

/by

Did Jesus Really Claim to Be God?

Podcast: Play in new window

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

Sometimes you’ll hear Muslim apologists and other skeptics of Christianity ask, “Where does Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me’”?  You won’t find Jesus using those words anywhere in the New Testament documents.  Instead, we read Jesus kept calling Himself “The Son of Man.”  On the face of it, that sounds more human than divine.  Is that right?  Did Jesus really claim to be God in words and actions other than “I am God, worship me”?   And if He did claim to be God, why wasn’t He more overt about it?  Why not just come out and say it plainly?

Frank invites Crossexamined.org board member, and budding apologist, Ryan Crews to the show to answer those questions and more.  Join them for a fascinating discussion about the self-identity of Jesus, and how to answer objections to the divinity of Jesus.

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

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

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

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

/by
Was Jesus Married?

Was Jesus Married?

By Mikel Del Rosario

Every Christmas and Easter, I tend to get into conversations about Jesus with people who see Christianity differently. But I’ve also found that even Christians can ask questions raised by skeptics in the public square like, “Was Jesus married?” Often times, Christians find challenges to the Bible’s portrayal of Jesus in a popular book, movie, YouTube video, or somewhere online and wonder how to respond.

Recently, the question of whether or not Jesus had a wife has come up again. So, was Jesus married?

There is no ancient evidence that explicitly tells us that Jesus was married. But raising the question makes a good conspiracy theory. For example, think about popular conversations surrounding Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code, and the alleged “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” fragment. Still, it’s not the kind of thing that historians who study Jesus professionally spent a lot of time debating. In fact, there is a virtual consensus among professional Historical Jesus scholars that Jesus was single.

In this post, I share four challenges to this virtual consensus and show how historical data can help us understand cultural concerns. (1) Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene? (2) Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him? (3) Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi? (4) Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Was Jesus Married to Mary Magdalene?

Why might some people think that Jesus was married? Here are four culturally-based questions that tend to come up in conversations about Jesus’ marital status.

First, it wasn’t common for Jewish women to travel or live alongside men in Jesus’ culture. So, some people wonder if this was socially acceptable only because Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ wife. But Luke says that there were three women who travelled with Jesus: Susanna, Joanna, and Mary Magdalene (8:1-3) And he doesn’t say anything that links Mary to Jesus as a wife at all. Beyond this, Jesus was known to challenge cultural views of how men and women should relate to one another, so operating outside the norm by letting women minister alongside him wasn’t a departure from his modus operandi. Later, as Jesus was dying on the cross, he didn’t show any special attention to Mary Magdalene, but instead gave special attention to his mother and John.

Was Jesus Married to the Woman Who Anointed Him?

Second, some people wonder if the sinful woman who anointed Jesus was actually his wife (Luke 7:36-50). They reason that the whole situation wouldn’t have been as offensive to a Jewish audience if the woman was married to Jesus. But Luke reports that the whole situation was in fact offensive, which is why the Pharisee said “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner” (Luke 7:39). That objection wouldn’t make a lot of sense if the woman was Jesus’ wife.

Was Jesus Married Because He was a Rabbi?

Third, some people argue that since Jesus was a rabbi, he would have gotten married because that was the tradition of the rabbis. But this starts from a faulty premise. Even though people called Jesus, “teacher” and “rabbi,” he actually wasn’t a rabbi in any official Jewish capacity. This is one reason why the Jewish leaders were often challenging his authority to interpret the law. Beyond this, his teaching about becoming a (metaphorical) eunuch for the sake of the kingdom seems to relate to his own example of singleness and devotion to God (Matthew 19:10-12).

Was Jesus Married Because He was Jewish?

Fourth, some say that Jesus had to be married because he was Jewish—as if all Jewish men in the first century felt compelled to marry by their culture. But this just isn’t true. Again, it’s based on a false premise. We know there were first-century Jews who chose to remain single. And their singleness was nothing to be ashamed of in their culture. Some people even looked up to them for it.

A Hellenistic Jew, Philo of Alexandria, wrote that not all Jews thought they had to be married. In fact, some very pious Jews tried to avoid being married as part of their religious devotion (Hypothetical 11.14-17).

The Essenes were a Jewish sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in the Qumran caves. They were very concerned about being faithful Jews. These Jews didn’t think they had to be married and chose to be celibate for religious reasons. For them, it helped them keep God as their top priority. Still, archeologists have discovered evidence that there were a minority of women who lived alongside the men at Qumran. This goes to show that Jewish women did live alongside some pious Jewish men who chose to stay single.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, for the Essenes, celibacy was not required, but it was strongly encouraged. He said that they admired abstinence, even to the point where they “neglect wedlock” (Jewish War 2.8.2.121-22).

Josephus also said that many Jews admired the Essenes because of their religious commitment (Antiquities 18.1.5.20). So, not all Jewish men felt compelled to get married, and their singleness was nothing to be ashamed of because it was part of their religious devotion. Paul actually mentions a similar idea in a Christian context (1 Corinthians 7). Which brings me to an extra observation.

Paul on Marriage and Singleness

Here’s a little bonus: It’s interesting to see how Paul does not refer to Jesus in a couple of discussions about marriage and singleness. On the one hand, he didn’t appeal to Jesus while telling the Corinthians about how a pastor had the right to be married (1 Cor 9:4-7). If Jesus was married, this would be the perfect place to say, “Since Jesus was married, all pastors can be married, too.”

On the other hand, when Paul gives his own personal advice about staying single, he doesn’t mention Jesus either. This is because he wasn’t telling Christians that they had to stay single in order to be fully devoted to God. So, he didn’t want to say, “Since Jesus was single, all Christians should be single, too.” Jesus never taught that, and putting an end to families would spell the end of the Christian movement! Still, my point is that Paul’s silence about Jesus’ marital status in these discussions makes good sense if Jesus was single.

Jesus was Single

So, was Jesus married? No. All the data supports the virtual scholarly consensus that Jesus was single. Contrary to what some might say about first-century Jewish culture, a pious Jewish man could remain single and have no problem fitting in with Jewish society. Jewish culture did understand and appreciate singleness, especially when connected to a lifestyle of religious devotion.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message (book) by Ravi Zacharias

 

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: http://bit.ly/2YyEl63

/by
Did Paul really change his tactics after Athens and begin to take a dim view of apologetics?

Did Paul really change his tactics after Athens and begin to take a dim view of apologetics?

By Erik Manning

Some Christians have argued that apologetics is a waste of time. We aren’t supposed to be arguing with unbelievers; we’re just called to preach the simple gospel. If we’re faithful to do that, the Holy Spirit will supernaturally come to our aid — either in supernatural conviction, or performing signs and wonders through us that no one can gainsay.

To support this view, these well-meaning believers will point to Paul’s so-called ‘failure’ in Athens. Paul debated with the thinkers of Mars Hill, using natural theology and quoting their own philosophers in order to persuade them of the truth of the gospel. Paul’s results were modest. Acts 17:32-34 reads: “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.”

After Athens, Paul moved on to Corinth and switched up his approach, or so the story goes. In 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5, Paul says that the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing. He quotes Isaiah, who wrote that “God will destroy the wisdom of the wise,” which included the ballyhooed wisdom of the Greeks. God isn’t calling very many of those who are wise by worldly standards.

Paul says that when he came to the Corinthians, he didn’t come to them with lofty speech or wisdom. He decided to know nothing but Jesus and him crucified and came in demonstration of the Holy Spirit and power. In 1 Cor. 4:20, Paul continues this line of thought, saying the kingdom of God doesn’t consist in talk but in power.

So these critics argue that for Paul, using fancy arguments and evidence wasn’t necessary anymore. He learned this the hard way at the Areopagus.

Here’s the thing about this view: While there is some seemingly some biblical evidence that Paul switched things up with the Corinthians, it just isn’t true that Paul didn’t continue to use evidence and arguments in order to persuade people to become Christians. We just have to keep reading.

Did Paul give up on using reason and evidence after Athens?

For starters, let’s see how Luke records Paul’s visit to Corinth. Acts 18:3 says: “And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.” The Jews later tried to get Paul arrested, saying to the proconsul, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” (v. 13).

Paul clearly was still in the business of trying to persuade people. This pattern continues in the very next chapter when Paul goes to Ephesus. Check out Acts 19:8-10:

“And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. This continued for two years so that all the residents of Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews, and Greeks.”

Paul was reasoning in the synagogues. When the Jews weren’t having it, he moved on and rented out the lecture hall of Tyrannus and was “reasoning daily,” there for two whole years. He did this until everyone in the area heard the gospel. This almost sounds like a daily public Q+A session. As Peter May writes:

“for Paul, a lively exchange of views, in which he presented the gospel. By engaging with [the culture in the cities in Acts], he challenged their assumptions, clarified the issues, stormed their defences, provoked their questions, addressed their doubts, and presented the gospel in a compelling manner. This sort of “inter-faith” dialogue was not merely about finding common ground or seeking mutual understanding. It was far more than that. Paul engaged in dialogue in order to win his hearers to Christ.”

Peter May, What is Apologetics?

Paul still continues this pattern at the end of Acts. Even after having a healing revival of sorts (Acts 28:8-9), he still used arguments and reason to persuade others to become Christians. Acts 28:23, we read: “When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening, he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.”

Paul’s still using his eyewitness testimony of the resurrection. He’s still using the argument from prophecy.

Paul used apologetics in his letters

We also have what Paul wrote that undercuts this argument of “preach and perform miracles only.” In the very same letter, Paul points to eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus in order to prove the resurrection of the physical body to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 15:3-8, he cites a creed that lists multiple individuals and groups who had seen the risen Jesus.

He even uses modus tollens in the form of an argument. Quoting the Expositor’s Greek NT Commentary on 1 Cor 15:17-18, “Paul leaves the inference, which observes the strict method of the modus tollens, to the consciousness of his readers (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20): “We are true witnesses, you are redeemed believers; on both accounts it is certain that Christ has risen,—and therefore that there is a resurrection of the dead”.

Paul deftly uses logic to show them that they’re begging the question when they say there is no resurrection from the dead. For if Christ isn’t raised, then their faith is useless. But Christ has been raised, therefore their faith isn’t futile — they too will one day be raised.

In his second letter to the Corinthians, Paul says, “We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ.” (2 Cor 10:5) And writing from prison a decade letter, Paul writes to the Philippians that he is set for the defense of the gospel. (Phil 1:7) The Greek word defense there is apologia, where we get our word apologetics. He is set out to remove false ideas and defend the gospel.

Paul did not give up on apologetics

So the bottom line is that it’s just not true that Paul didn’t value using reason and evidence in proclaiming and defending the gospel. It’s ironic that these pious-sounding critics against apologetics use reason and evidence to defend their own view that apologetics is worthless. They’re making an apologetic against apologetics, which is just sawing off the branch that they’re sitting on. Why not think that God’s Spirit can use preaching, miracles, and arguments? Why limit what God can use?

By pointing to Paul’s alleged paltry results in Athens, they basically are saying reaching Damaris and Dionysus the Areopagite was a waste of time. Jesus doesn’t think that way, the parable of the lost sheep tells us that Jesus will leave the 99 to find the one. Paul said became all things to all men in order that he might save some. (1 Cor. 9:21-23)

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Practical Apologetics in Worldview Training by Hank Hanegraaff (Mp3)

The Great Apologetics Adventure by Lee Strobel (Mp3)

Defending the Faith on Campus by Frank Turek (DVD Set, mp4 Download set and Complete Package)

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

Reaching Atheists for Christ by Greg Koukl (Mp3)

Living Loud: Defending Your Faith by Norman Geisler (Book)

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

 

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

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/37oXnQ8

/by