Tag Archive for: Jesus

Who Was Jesus God Man Or Both

Who Was Jesus? God? Man? Or Both?

,

By Ryan Leasure

Who was Jesus? Can you think of a more important question? After all, it’s hardly controversial to suggest that he’s the most significant figure in history. And, I dare say, it’s not even close. Yet much confusion exists over his nature. This confusion, of course, dates all the way back to Jesus himself. In Matthew 16, he asked his disciples, “who do people say that I am?” The answers were all over the board.

Today, some suggest he was God. But how can that be since he was confined to a human body and experienced death? Isn’t it basic knowledge that God is omnipresent and can’t die?

Others suggest he was just a man. But if that’s the case, why did he claim deity and allow others to worship him? And on what authority was he able to forgive sins? Wouldn’t that be blasphemy and imply he wasn’t a great moral teacher as some claim?

These are complex issues to say the least. Yet, if Jesus is, in fact, the most important person in the history of the world, it’s worth thinking deeply about him. Scholars have dedicated volumes to expounding all the complexities that relate to the nature of Jesus — often known as Christology. The conversations can get really deep and technical in a hurry. The purpose of this post, however, is to provide a general overview of what the Bible teaches about the nature of Jesus, and to look at how the church has thought about him throughout the centuries.

Jesus, God The Son Eternal

The Scriptures teach, and the church has affirmed that Jesus is God the Son. That is, he’s the second member of the eternal Triune Godhead. John 1:1-3 emphatically declares this point: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

Notice how John describes the Word — a clear reference to Jesus. First, he was “with” God. The Greek word for “with” is pros which literally means “before the face of” or “face-to-face.” So John declares that this Word, from the very beginning, was face-to-face with God. Moreover, John states that this same Word “was” God. Clearly, John is planting Trinitarian seeds already in his prologue.

Verse three also highlights the fact that it was the Word who created the world. The author of Hebrews made a similar claim when he wrote that God “appointed [the Son] the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world” (Heb. 1:2). Furthermore, Paul wrote, “For by [the Son] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16).

Who alone can create space, time, and matter, except someone who is transcendent beyond space, time, and matter? If it’s through the Son that all things were created, that means he himself was never created, but is instead eternal.

Let me offer a few more supporting texts. In John 8:58, Jesus tells the Pharisees who were questioning him, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” This is a significant claim by Jesus. Not only does he claim preexistence, he claims the divine name for himself. You’ll recall that when God spoke to Moses from a burning bush in Exodus 3, God declared that his personal name was I AM. So by claiming the name I AM, Jesus was claiming to be the God of the Old Testament.

Paul also refers to the deity of Jesus in Romans 9:5. He declares, “To them (the Jews) belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.” It’s hard to get any clearer than stating Christ is “God over all.”

I could give other examples, but that should suffice for now.

God The Son Became Man

We’ve already established that Jesus is God the Son — the eternal Word who created the world from the beginning. At the same time though, we know that Jesus was a man of flesh and blood. For example, he got tired and hungry, experienced pain and sadness, and ultimately died on a Roman cross — all activities that only humans can do.

John 1:14 describes this transition to manhood when it announces, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Traditionally known as the incarnation, God the Son became a human in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Today, in our anti-supernatural biased culture, it’s common for people to embrace the fact that Jesus was truly human. They have a hard time, however, believing that Jesus was truly divine. Interestingly, the exact opposite was true in the early church.

One of the earliest heresies in the church was known as Docetism — taken from the Greek word dokein which means “to seem” or “appear.” This view taught that Jesus wasn’t really human, he only appeared to be human. The rationale for this view was that it seemed impossible for someone who is so powerful, holy, pure, and spiritual to be mixed up in something so vile and shameful. Crucifixion was, after all, the most degrading and shameful way to die. Thus, in order to protect the integrity of the divine Jesus, many in the early church believed his human nature was merely a facade.

The apostle John encountered this heresy near the end of the first century. Listen carefully to his words: “Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God.” That is to say, John had to combat those who denied Jesus was really “in the flesh”— a clear defense against Docetism.

Divine Emptying?

Perhaps no other text in the New Testament highlights the beauty and majesty of Jesus better than the Christian hymn in Philippians 2. Despite its beauty, much debate surrounds its contents. Paul writes:

Have this mind among yourself which is yours in Christ Jesus, who though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped. But he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5-7).

The hymn goes on to describe Jesus’ death, resurrection, ascension, and exultation. Much could be said about this text, but I want to focus in on only one word — emptied. What does it mean that Jesus emptied himself? The text clearly affirms that Jesus existed as God and was equal with God in eternity past, but in the incarnation, he emptied himself.

Scholars have written volumes and debated vociferously over the meaning of this word. Many theories exist about its meaning, but I think the meaning of the word is pretty straight forward.

When the Son emptied himself, he didn’t empty himself of any of his deity, as if he became less divine in the incarnation. The text doesn’t tell us that. Instead, the text tells something completely different. It says that Jesus emptied himself BY taking the form a servant being born in the likeness of men. For Paul, emptying didn’t mean less deity. Rather it meant an added human nature. It was a subtraction by an addition. The Son, who eternally existed with a divine nature, added a human nature to himself in the incarnation.

One Person with Two Natures — The Hypostatic Union

So far, we’ve established that Jesus was both God and man. But how does this all work together? As you can imagine, the early church had lots of disputes over how to synthesize all of the biblical data. In the end, the church agreed at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), that Jesus was one person who subsisted in two natures. Here is an excerpt from the creed:

Our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man…one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation… coalescing in one prosopon and one hypostasis — not parted or divided into two prosopa.

The creed is much longer than this, but notice a few key phrases:

“Truly God and truly man” indicates that the early church believed that Jesus was both God and man. He didn’t cease being God in the incarnation. Furthermore, he wasn’t half God half man. He was fully God and fully man.

“Two natures without confusion” meaning the church didn’t believe that the divine nature blended together with the human nature to form a new quasi divine nature. This was in direct response to the heresy monophysitism which taught that Jesus only had one blended nature.

“Coalescing in one prosopon (person) — not parted or divided into two prosopa (people)” meaning they believed that even though Jesus had two natures, he was only one person — or one acting subject. This was in direct response to the heresy Nestorianism which taught that Jesus was two separate persons.

In sum, the Scriptures teach and the Church has affirmed that God the Son has existed from eternity past with a divine nature, but in the incarnation he added a human nature to himself. Thus, he’s one person (God the Son) with two distinct natures (divine and human).

Theologians have labeled this union of two natures in one person as the hypostatic union.

Thinking Deeply About the Hypostatic Union

More questions exist with respect to the hypostatic union. How do we explain that the Son knew all things as God but at the same time grew in wisdom? How should we think about Jesus still maintaining full deity as the eternal creator and sustainer of the universe while simultaneously being in the manger? Since Jesus was God, could he really sin?

Theologians debate all these various questions, but understanding all the different nuances and, at times, mysteries isn’t a requirement for orthodoxy. What is necessary, though, is that Christians affirm the Chalcedonian Creed (AD 451) which declares that God the Son exists as one person with two distinct natures. Once you get that down, you can study all the different complexities later.

 

Ryan Leasure holds a M.A. from Furman University and a M.Div. 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/2IJQsch

/by

Why Would God Make Me a Lesbian?

,

Could there be any more sensitive and provocative question in our culture today?  (Since we posted this video on YouTube two days ago it has averaged nearly 2,000 views per hour.)  A student posed the question at Towson State University.  Here is our four-minute discussion:

The video ends abruptly because the young lady went on to ask another question (you can see the entire presentation and all of the Q&A here).

The bottom line is that we all have an orientation to sinful behavior.  We all have attractions we ought not act on, and we all have to restrain ourselves on numerous fronts each day.  The only one who did that perfectly and completely was Jesus of Nazareth.  That’s why only he can be our sacrifice.  He didn’t die for his own sins, but for ours.

Of course, much more could be said on the issues of love, sex, natural law, homosexuality and same-sex marriage than one can say in a four-minute video.  I may touch on this a bit in the podcast later this week.  But if you want to go into even more depth, I have done so in this recently updated little book.

/by
Cómo sabemos que Jesús realmente murió

¿Cómo sabemos que Jesús realmente murió?

A recent podcast listener offered the following objection: Couldn’t the disciples have been wrong about Jesus’ death? After all, when Paul was stoned by the Jews of Antioch and Iconium (in Acts 14 ) they dragged him out of the city and left him for dead. “ But the disciples surrounded him and he got up and went into the city ” (verse 20). If the disciples were wrong about Paul, couldn’t they have been wrong about Jesus too? As I always say, anything and everything is possible, but not everything is reasonable. There are good reasons to believe that the disciples were not wrong about Jesus’ death:

  1. Prolonged contact

Unlike the contact with Paul after his stoning, the disciples had intimate and prolonged contact with the body of Jesus. We tend to read the following verses very quickly:

Mark 15:43-46

“ Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the council… bought a linen cloth, and taking it off, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of the rock…”

But stop and think about it for a minute. The disciples had to remove the nails, take the body down, carry it a distance to the tomb, prepare the body thoroughly with ointments and spices used on such occasions, wrap the body, and then place it in the tomb. While we can read the procedure in minutes, it takes much longer to actually complete. Surely the disciples were also deeply grieving over Jesus’ death. In all this prolonged contact with his body, do we really think that they didn’t go out of their way to prove to themselves that he wasn’t really dead? During all this time, is it reasonable to believe that they wouldn’t have noticed the three uncomfortable characteristics of dead bodies? I’ve been around enough dead people to recognize the characteristics that appear when a heart stops beating:

Temperature drop

When the heart stops beating, the body begins to grow cold. In the time it would take to prepare Jesus for the grave, the disciples would certainly have noticed this characteristic of death.

Rigidity

When blood is not circulating, the body begins to stiffen. Dead bodies begin to feel and behave differently than unconscious bodies with a beating heart.

Lividness

Gravity begins to act on the lack of blood circulation. When the blood remains in those extremities closest to the ground, the pigmentation is noticeable.

In all the time it took to prepare Jesus’ body, with all the time the disciples had in contact, is it reasonable to think that they would not have repeatedly checked to see if he was still breathing and that they would not have noticed the three uncomfortable characteristics of dead people?

  1. Unexpected corroboration

John , a disciple of Jesus, grew up as a fisherman. I doubt he had any medical training. However, look at what he reports in his Gospel:

John 19:32-34

“ The soldiers came and broke the legs of the first man, and of the other man who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance, and immediately blood and water came out .”

John seems to record an aspect of Jesus’ body that is common when people are fatally wounded. Critical injuries typically cause people to go into circulatory shock, a condition I commonly see at the scenes of assaults or accidents. When people die from their wounds, their death is usually accompanied by Pericardial or Pleural Effusion , a condition that causes water to accumulate around the heart or inside the lungs. It appears that the illiterate fisherman is reporting this condition in his Gospel.

Do you think he could have done this intentionally in an effort to mislead us, or is it more reasonable to attribute his description to a true observation?

  1. External confirmation

History tells us that Roman soldiers were to pay a terrible penalty if they allowed a capital criminal to escape or avoid the sentence to which he was sentenced. For this reason, Roman soldiers were ruthless and meticulous in carrying out their orders with precision . Look again at how the Bible describes the death of Jesus:

John 19:31 – 33

“ Then the Jews, because it was the Preparation Day, that the bodies should not remain on the cross on the Sabbath day (for that Sabbath day was a high day), begged Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they did not break his legs .”

According to non-Christians at the scene, Jesus was dead on the cross.

  1. Connection with eyewitnesses

Look at the description of Jesus’ burial given in Mark’s Gospel. Note Joseph of Arimathea’s description:

          Mark 15:42-46

“When evening came, (for it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the Sabbath,) Joseph of Arimathea, a distinguished member of the council, who himself was waiting for the kingdom of God, came and went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Pilate was surprised that he was already dead; and when he had brought the centurion, he asked him if he were already dead. When the centurion had informed him, he gave the body to Joseph. Joseph bought a linen cloth, took it off, wrapped it in the linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb that was hewn out of rock. He rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb.”

It appears that Mark is describing the same scene as John, but Mark includes a character that John omits. Why does Mark, writing many years before John, include Joseph? It stands to reason that Joseph was still alive when Mark wrote his account; Mark may be including Joseph so that early readers can contact Joseph as a living eyewitness who not only saw the crucifixion, but also touched and wrapped Jesus’ dead body.

The experience the disciples had with Jesus was very different from the experience the disciples had with Paul at the time of his stoning. The disciples simply “stood around” Paul after the stoning; they did much more with Jesus’ body after his crucifixion.

 

J. Warner Wallace is the author of Cold-Case Christianity, has a career spanning more than 25 years as a police officer and detective, holds a Master of Divinity from Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, and is an adjunct professor of apologetics at BIOLA University.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2Sa4Df1

Translated by Raul Jaramillo

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada

/by
Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus

Why Should We Trust the Extra-Biblical References to Jesus?

,

By Jeremy Linn

We received a great question on our Instagram page this week:

“How do we know that the extra-biblical sources which mention Jesus are trustworthy? Josephus, Tacitus, and the rest weren’t eyewitnesses; they never knew Jesus.”

The questioner here is referring to ancient historical accounts – especially written by the historians Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus – which mention Jesus and give us some information about him. Josephus describes Jesus as the brother of James in his work Antiquities of the Jews and also provides the most well-known extra-biblical reference to Jesus. Tacitus makes reference to Jesus’ death under Pontius Pilate in his work Annals.

As the questioner stated, Josephus and Tacitus both were not eyewitnesses to the events of Jesus’ life. Josephus was born a few years after the events of Jesus’ life and was mostly involved in Jewish political matters (and not in the early Christian church). Tacitus also lived after Jesus – a few decades later – and focused on the politics and history of Rome (an area not heavily reached by the Christian church at the time).

Since these two historians were not eyewitnesses, how can we know to trust their references to Jesus? There are a few things we need to consider when answering this question:

  1. Ancient accounts of historical events were often written by people who lived after the events happened

In other words, they were not eyewitnesses of the events. Still, in these cases, we can still learn basic facts about the events which took place. For example, the earliest source we have about the events of Alexander the Great was written by a historian who lived around 300 years after the life of Alexander. Even with this time gap, we can consider many facts about Alexander to be reliable and true.

  1. Almost all ancient historical accounts were written within a culture focused on oral tradition

This focus means the details of the events were transmitted verbally within a community that could check the facts of the events with each other. This method of transmitting information becomes powerful when multiple people witness an event, as all the eyewitnesses can work together to reach a reliable account of the events that took place.

This oral focus gives us a primary reason why the writing of historical events tended to happen later – there was little need to immediately preserve events through writing when people were used to preserving events orally within their community. It also explains how a written account written years after a historical event can still be reliable – a reasonably accurate oral tradition could have already solidified by the time the events were written down.

  1. The works of Josephus and Tacitus are generally reliable. 

Tacitus is praised by historians for being a reliable source on the history of ancient Rome. Josephus’ reliability has been called into question because of his tendency to exaggerate and because of a strong bias towards Jews. However, he has provided us with valuable information about historical figures like Herod the Great, and information about the inner workings of Jewish ritual and culture. Overall, Josephus is reliable in providing basic historical facts about the lives of Jews.

Once we establish the general reliability of these authors, we can turn to the reliability of specific historical accounts they wrote, and specific passages within those accounts.

  1. There is no reason to question Tacitus’ reference to Jesus being killed under Pontius Pilate. 

The language used in passage 15.44 – saying that Jesus suffered the extreme penalty under Pontius Pilate, is consistent with other works of Tacitus. There is nothing out of the ordinary noted in this passage which would make us think the text was tampered with. And we even have archaeological evidence for the existence of Pilate – through an inscription found 50 years ago, and a ring found this year.

  1. We can find basic facts about Jesus in the works of Josephus. 

The references to Jesus in Josephus’ Antiquities get a bit more complicated. There is one reference to Jesus as the brother of James, which appears in every copy we have of the Antiquities. The reference doesn’t seem to be out of the ordinary in terms of the flow and style of the writings of Josephus. It is reasonable to consider this passage reliable.

However, in the most well-known reference to Jesus called the Flavius Testimonium, there is some commentary we would not expect Josephus to make based on his other writings and based on the fact he is a Jew. For example, one copy of the Antiquities includes the comment that Jesus was “the Christ,” which would be highly unlikely for him to say (after all, that would make him more of a Christian than a Jew!).

The inclusion of this commentary makes us question the details given in the passage, and brings up the possibility of an error in copying the passage or an intentional change in the passage by readers who lived after Josephus. That doesn’t mean we need to throw out the entire passage – it just means certain details are in question. When we eliminate the questionable details, we can still pull basic facts about Jesus in the passage, such as he was someone who did “marvelous works.”

  1. These references are not the only sources we have on Jesus. 

Let’s say we do throw the references in Tacitus and Josephus out. We still have the letters of Paul, the synoptic gospels, the writings of early Church fathers, and a few other extra-biblical references that provide some information on Jesus. Even the Gnostic gospels from the 2nd Century point us to some very basic facts about Jesus (such as his existence!)

The references in Tacitus and Josephus give us a greater sense of confidence in Jesus’ existence, and some key facts about his life – especially his ability to do things that people considered to be miraculous or at least “wonderous.” The references also point us to his death, an event that most Muslims and some skeptics deny. And through other extra-biblical sources, we can see that early followers revered Jesus highly and elevated him to the status of God.

Again, I didn’t intend for this post to provide the definitive answer for the reliability of extra-biblical references to Jesus. But these six considerations will definitely give you something to think about. No matter how we view the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus, one thing is for sure – we have a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus and the basic claims that Christians make about his life.

 

Jeremy is the co-founder of the ministry Twin Cities Apologetics and is an accountant for a law firm in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He’s also going to Bethel Seminary for a graduate degree in a program called Christian Thought (basically Apologetics!). Outside of Apologetics, Jeremy enjoys sports, playing guitar, and making videos. 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2FZeFc9

/by
Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

Is Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic Prophecy?

,

By Brian Chilton

More and more scholars are becoming skeptical of Messianic prophecy in the Hebrew Bible—that is, the Old Testament. Michael Rydelniknotes that “Although evangelical scholarship still recognizes that there is something messianic about the Hebrew Bible, for the most part, it sees it as a story that finds its climax in Jesus, not as predictions that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled” (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope,3-4). Yet, such skepticism is not justified. Sure, some passages in the Hebrew Bible have been stretched beyond its scope, something that can become a dangerous trend. Nevertheless, certain passages in the Hebrew Bible enjoy a status of being both Messianic in context and in its history.

Is Isaiah 7 14 a Messianic Prophecy

One such Messianic prophecy is found in Isaiah 7:14. Four schools of thought have developed on how one should interpret Isaiah 7:14. Some hold to direct fulfillment indicating that the text only speaks to the fulfillment found in Messiah. Others hold to a historical fulfillment which claims that the text only addresses the birth of a child in Isaiah’s day. A third view holds to a double fulfillment in that the prophecy was fulfilled to a degree in Isaiah’s day and later in the Messiah. A fourth view is espoused by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He calls it a double reference (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364). A double reference “states that one piece of Scripture actually contains two prophecies, each having its own fulfillment” (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua,364). After researching the passage, I must agree that in Isaiah 7:14 one finds a double reference. Although Isaiah 7:14 is among the most controversial of Messianic prophecies (Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope, 147), several good reasons exist to accept the prophecy as Messianic in scope.

  1. King Ahaz and House of David. To understand the passage, one must understand the chapter in which Isaiah 7:14 is found. Isaiah comes to King Ahazwhile Ahaz, and King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah of Israel were reigning. Yahweh (the personal name for God) tells Isaiah to bring his son Shear-jashub with him to meet Ahaz (Is. 7:3). Yahweh speaks to Isaiah again telling him to ask Ahaz for a sign (7:10-11), but Ahaz refuses (7:12). After Ahaz refuses, Isaiah turns his attention to the house of David (7:13) asking if they would try the patience of Yahweh. It is then that Isaiah delivers the Immanuel prophecy. From keeping the text in context, Yahweh through Isaiah is addressing two distinct groups of people. On the one hand, he is addressing King Ahaz. On the other hand, he is addressing the house of David. The Immanuel prophecy is given to the house of David and not to King Ahaz. King Ahaz’s sign was found in Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub who already reached the age of accountability and chose to do what was right. Ahaz was much older and still chose to do what was evil. Thus, Ahaz’s kingdom was coming to an end.
  2. Singular and Plural Language. A close examination of the Hebrew text shows a difference in the language used directed toward Ahaz as opposed to the house of David. When Isaiah is addressing Ahaz, he uses singular language and uses plural language when speaking to the house of David. As Fruchtenbaum noted earlier, the text appears to be giving two differing prophecies—one to Ahaz and one to the house of David. Since the Immanuel prophecy is directed to the house of David, it is not necessary to hold that the prophecy only addresses Ahaz and even his time.
  3. Present and Future Language. In the Immanuel prophecy, Isaiah uses the Hebrew imperfect verb yitten, which means “he will give,” to describe the timing of the prophecy. The imperfect verb in Hebrew describes something that is incomplete and will transpire at some point in the future. Thus, the sign for the house of David was a sign given byGod to transpire at some point in the future. When? The text does not say. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to think that the text could find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah.
  4. ‘Almah and Parthenos. The Revised Standard Version translation made a great deal of waves in the Christian community when it translated ‘almah as“young woman” instead of the classical translation of “virgin.” Does the term refer to a young woman or a virgin? The answer is both. ‘Almah is almost always used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a young woman who has just reached the age of marriage who had not yet wed. ‘Almah is used in the following passages in the Hebrew Bible: 1) Gen. 24:43 used of Rebekah; 2) Ex. 2:8 used of Miriam, Moses’s sister; 3) Ps. 68:25 used in the divine royal procession, the virgins symbolize purity; 4) So. 1:3 refers to the purity in marriage; 5) So. 6:8 contrasts the purity of virginity with the impurity of concubines; 6) Pr. 30:18-19 also contrasts virginity with adultery, and 7) in Is. 7:14 (Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua, 364-365). In Jewish culture, a young woman who just reached the age of marriage most certainly implied the woman’s virginal status. The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) understood this to be the case. The LXX translates ‘almahin Isaiah 7:14 with the Greek term parthenos which most certainly means “virgin.”
  5. Current and Future Understanding. Isaiah connects the birth of the child from Isaiah 7:14 to the prophecies given in 9:6-7 and in 11:1-10. Thus, the prophet took the view at the time the prophecy was given that this promised child would come at some point in the future. This child would be linked intrinsically with God in some fashion. But not only did Isaiah understand the prophecy in this way, other did also. Micah is one such example. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah’s, linked his prophecy in some sense with that of Isaiah 7:14. Micah notes that “Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are small among the clans of Judah; one will come from you to be ruler over Israel for me. His origin is from antiquity, from ancient times” (Mi. 5:2). As already noted, the translators of the LXX understood Isaiah 7:14 to refer to a virgin in the 100s BC. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 was recognized to be Messianic, or at least more prophetic than some modern scholars, as well as by early Christians, such as Matthew 1:23.

Isaiah 7:14 is a glorious passage that prophesies the birth of a royal, divine king that was to be born in the most miraculous of fashions. In our attempt to properly interpret the Bible, let us not be drawn to a hyper-skepticism that very well could combat the very thinking of the writers of the New Testament. They held the text to be Messianic not because they made it that way, but because that was the prophetic intention of the text.

Sources

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Yeshua: The Life of Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective. Volume One. San Antonio, TX: Ariel, 2017.

Rydelnik, Michael. The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? NAC Studies in Bible & Theology. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010.

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at LibertyUniversity and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2zWk139

/by
The Top Ten Ways to Advance the Gospel at Holiday Dinners

The Top Ten Ways to Advance the Gospel at Holiday Dinners

,

Dreading those awkward family dinners this Christmas season? Unsure about how to tactfully bring up the real reason for Christmas? Here are the Top Ten ways to advance the Gospel at Holiday Dinners:

The Top Ten Ways to Advance the Gospel at Holiday Dinners

  1. Pray: Start praying now for opportunities and for hearts to be open. Then volunteer to pray before the meal (No one will interrupt or critique a prayer!). Keep the prayer short and thank God for:
    • Your family members and guests by name
    • The food
    • Coming to earth that first Christmas in the person of Jesus to pay for our sins and to offer forgiveness and salvation for free to anyone who trusts in Christ. (After all, if ever there was a time when people expect you talk about Jesus it’s during a prayer on the day, we celebrate his birthday! Right?)
  2. Serve: Get off the couch and serve people as if you were a real Christian!
  3. Ask: Seriously ask people how they’ve been doing this year. Then ask them, “Is there anything I can pray for you about?” If something about Christianity comes up, the three most important questions you can ask are these:
    • Do you consider yourself a Christian?
    • Why are you not a Christian?
    • If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? (I’ve found that many people are on a happiness quest rather than a truth quest. They don’t want God to exist because they think He might get in the way of their pursuit of “happiness.” This question will tell you if they are really open or not.)
  4. Listen (and testify if given the opportunity): If they ask you how you’ve been doing, fold in a story of how God is working. If they don’t ask you, keep listening and asking them what they are up to. If people only want to talk about themselves, let them.
  5. Use Tactical Questions When They Get Something Wrong: When people make truth claims, it’s not your job to refute them—it is their job to support them. So before responding to their statements, ask these questions.
    • What do you mean by that?
    • How did you come to that conclusion? (Or what evidence do you have for that?)
    • Have you ever considered…? (Complete the sentence with the evidence you would like the person to consider).
  6. Seed the conversation: Here are some common objections to Christianity they might bring up, with possible responses you might make to seed the conversation (after you ask them the tactical questions above):
    • Hypocrites: True, but the church is a hospital for sinners. If we were perfect, we wouldn’t need a Savior.
    • Exclusive: Do you think God should force people into Heaven against their will?
    • Atheism: I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
    • Science: Science doesn’t say anything: scientists do.
    • Miracles: Even atheists admit the universe began to exist out of nothing. Since there’s evidence for the greatest miracle in the Bible (Genesis 1:1), then every other miracle is at least possible.
    • Conspiracy: What motive did the Jewish New Testament writers have to make up a new religion? They already thought they were God’s chosen people, and they were persecuted for saying the Resurrection occurred?
    • Errors in the Bible: Where? Even if you’re right, does that mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? Christianity originated not with a book but with an event—the Resurrection. Why would Jews write the New Testament documents if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead?
    • Evil: What do you mean by evil? It can only exist if Good exists, which means if evil exists then God exists.
    • They have multiple objections and aren’t listening to your answers: If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?
  7. Agree & Affirm whatever they get right. It will make points of disagreement more acceptable.
  8. Use the Quick Answers section of the CrossExamined App to be ready to respond to specific objections (over 177,000 downloads so far!). You can find more robust responses to the objections above and others in my latest book, Stealing From God: Why Atheists need God to make their case and the DVD set by the same name.
  9. Show them what makes your walk easier: You Version Bible, The Amazing Bible Project Videos, CrossExamined App (people love gadgets, short clarifying videos, and apps).
  10. Write them afterwards: Following up on a conversation later via email can be very effective. That’s because you can present your ideas more clearly and completely while the other person can actually consider what you are saying without feeling the pressure of having to respond immediately. You can also include links to articles or websites for those that want to go deeper.

Above all, show the kind of grace and unconditional acceptance to others that Jesus has shown to you. You might be the only true ambassador for Jesus they will see this Christmas.

If you’ve benefited from our ministry, would you please help us launch into 2019 with a tax-deductible donation? Due to a generous donor, any contribution you make up to $20,000 will be matched! Please go here to contribute securely online or by check. Your donations will go 100% toward ministry and 0% toward buildings. Thank you!

A prophecy about Jesus written by Isaiah 700 years in advance:

For to us, a child is born, to us, a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace, there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this. ―Isaiah 9:6-7

Be Jesus to people this Christmas!

 

Dr. Frank Turek (D.Min.) is an award-winning author and frequent college speaker who hosts a weekly TV show on DirectTV and a radio program that airs on 186 stations around the nation.  His books include I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Stealing from God:  Why atheists need God to make their case

/by
Apologetics is Not For The Heart

Apologetics is Not For The Heart

By Richard Eng

Growing up, my Dad taught me apologetics. He was really excited about it, and good at it too. As someone who studied under Norman Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary, my Dad got some of the best training out there. As a result, He taught me a lot of what I now know. I found myself eating it up! I am a person who defined himself as a “dumb kid” for most of my life, so finally grasping something and understanding it well fueled me. The more I dove into apologetics, the more I found myself loving Jesus. It was actually apologetics and worldview training that motivated me to open up my Bible for myself, and not just because my parents or youth pastor told me to.

But something happened.

The Bible that I consumed became stale, like old bread. The apologetics arguments I had learned became familiar and rehearsed. There was not life in it anymore.

What I discovered through prayer and being mentored is that I was using what I knew about apologetics and the Bible to feel worthy before Him.

Finally! I wasn’t the dumb kid anymore. My heartfelt fixed for a moment! I could contribute, and contribute well. But my heart wanted more than just knowledge; it wanted acceptance. It wanted love.

Here is my point, apologetics is not the “missing piece” to your church if it does not continuously point back to Jesus. I’ve seen enough people walk away from the faith AFTER they were trained in apologetics to learn… we still have a heart problem. It is our inability to embrace ourselves in our brokenness that is the issue. If we reject ourselves, how can we receive love from God? That is what I had done for so many years, and still do. I falsely concluded that I must make myself “acceptable” before God before He can accept me. When all the while Jesus is there alongside you, ready to embrace you when you can see yourself through His eyes.

If you use apologetics as your spiritual kick, I promise you that there is no life in that. The goal of apologetics is to convince unbelievers and strengthen the reasonable faith of believers. But we still have a heart problem. Apologetics can never replace confession; it can never replace being known fully, it can never replace living out the true self of being a beloved child of God. Apologetics helps people think clearly, and the goal of thinking clearly is to be led to the person of Jesus.

Apologetics is a key part of discipleship, but discipleship is more than just apologetics. This is why I believe in a wholistic approach to apologetics. Some people will want to know why the B-Theory of time is not an adequate objection to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Some people don’t know (or care) what that last sentence meant! And that’s ok. Every believer in Jesus is given a gift for supporting the body of Christ, and not everyone is going to lead an apologetics ministry. But, every believer can benefit from apologetics (knowing what you believe and why you believe it).

I believe every person should be taught at least the simple apologetics. Arguments such as how we know Jesus was a real person, and why we have good reason to believe that He rose from the dead. There it is, apologetics. But apologetics, knowledge, arguments, all of what that offers can never replace allowing the Holy Spirit to work in your heart. The knowledge is good! But the Christian life is allowing the knowledge you have to transform your life by the means obedience to the Spirit. It is in this space where you find real freedom. 

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Ouw4JD

/by
Book Review The Historical Jesus Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

Book Review: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ

, ,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

In my late teens and early 20s, I was wrestling with many questions about what I believed. I had several challenges to my Christian faith that ranged from the philosophical to the scientific to the historical. One of the challenges that would not go away, due to some college professors and some friends, was the challenge to the historical Jesus and the gospels. Of all the worldviews one can hold, Christianity can be easily falsified by simply demonstrating that a single person did not actually exist in history: Jesus of Nazareth. Did he really exist in history? If so, what can we really know about him? Does that match was the Bible claims? Was there any evidence that Jesus actually came back to life after being dead? How do we know that the right books were included in the New Testament? Why not the books are known as the “Gnostic Gospels” too?

When I was looking for some answers to these questions, I came across the work of Dr. Gary Habermas. The first book of his that I read was the one I present to you today: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Reading through this book provided the answers to more than just the questions that I was asking but also to questions that I did not know would eventually come too. This was well over a decade ago, and it is time for me to revisit the book and publish a proper review of this most important work. The review will follow my usual chapter-by-chapter summary style and conclude with my thoughts and specific recommendations.

Part 1: Contemporary Challenges to the Historicity of Jesus

Chapter 1: The Modern Quest for the Historical Jesus

In the introductory chapter, Habermas introduces the reader to the historical quest to discover the historical Jesus. He goes over some of the history of the studies, what different scholars proposed at different times regarding Jesus’ historicity and how to handle the different miracle-claims of the New Testament. He describes the popularity of the liberal approaches of the fictitious lives of Jesus and the idea that the gospel accounts were purely mythologies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the deemphasizing of the historical Jesus in the early twentieth century. He brings the reader “up to speed” by describing the re-emphasis on the necessity of the historical Jesus near the mid-1900s and onto today. While most scholars today recognize that Jesus was a historical figure, there is a small group that still does not. Habermas reminds the reader that the popularity of a particular position does not provide legitimate evidence, in or of itself, for the historicity of Jesus, so this book will examine the evidence that has convinced the majority of scholars that the historical Jesus existed, and it will make the case that the historical Jesus is the Jesus of Christianity.

The historical Jesus Book 2

Chapter 2: Did Jesus Ever Live?

Even though most scholars reject the idea that Jesus never lived, the idea that he did should not be taken for granted in an investigation about the historical Jesus. Habermas addresses the two most common theories to explain the records of the New Testament without Jesus living in history. The first view addressed is that of G.A. Wells, while the second view is more modest and is promoted by Michael Martin.
G.A. Wells dates the gospels in the late first century to early second, and Paul’s letters earlier. He believes that the gospels were too late to contain accurate historical information, so he leans on Paul for historical information of Jesus. He holds that Paul’s writings include very little information about the historical Jesus and concludes that Paul neither knew or cared about the historical Jesus. Wells believes that, at best, Jesus was a much earlier historical figure that legend grew around, and at worst, Jesus was based upon pagan mythologies. Of the many issues with Wells’ view, Habermas address five of them. He provides textual and historical evidence that Wells is incorrect on issues of Paul’s lack of record of and/or concern with historical information about Jesus, the idea that Jesus may have lived prior to the first century AD, Jesus’ connection to pagan mythologies, the late dating of the gospels, and his overall historical methodology.
Recognizing the failure of the more extreme views of G.A. Wells, Michael Martin softens some of the positions to make them more compatible with the textual and historical evidence. For instance, Martin grants that some historical data can be gleaned from the Pauline epistles, but he does not allow for much. He does retain the late dating of the gospels, and he adds that extrabiblical sources either do not contain historical data of the historical Jesus or that the information is inaccurate. Habermas addresses each of these claims briefly as they were either addressed in the section on G.A. Wells or will be covered in greater detail later in the book.

The historical Jesus Book 3

Chapter 3: Limitations on the Historical Jesus

Even though the extreme view that Jesus never existed in history is widely rejected among scholars, many do still believe that what can be known about the Jesus of history is greatly limited. This view is born out in a few different ways. Habermas describes these various attempts to limit historical investigation of the Jesus of history and demonstrates how each of them fails, thus leaving wide open a historical investigation of the life of Jesus as a person that actually existed in the past.

The first view that Habermas addresses is the idea that the gospels record what early Christians believed about Jesus, not necessarily what actually happened. This view removes the gospels from the historical investigation because they would not be claiming to record what actually happened but just what a group of people believed. Habermas explains that this view fails on four accounts. The first is that it removes all historical grounding for the origin of Christianity (from where did the recorded beliefs come?). The second is that without even attempting to investigate the claims of the gospels as historical claims, it rejects them as mythological (how did they come to the conclusion that the gospels recorded beliefs and not events?). The third is that the view assumes that, unique among all historical authors, the early Christians’ records were to not be trusted to be true because they believed their records to be true (how does belief of an event necessitate an incorrect recording of that event?). And fourth, the view holds that due to the few copies of the gospels, we cannot trust that we have what the early Christians originally wrote (given the mountain of copies compared to other ancient writings, how then are we to trust that we know what other ancient writers originally wrote?).

Another optional view is that while the Gospels do record historical events, the only historical events that are correct are ones that are not miraculous. Habermas addresses four ways in which this view fails as well. The first here is that it presumes to reject the miracle claims without even investigating whether they happened or not. Such a priori assertions exhibit neither good scientific investigation nor good historical investigation. The second problem is that the view does not even allow for the investigation of miraculous events because they are miraculous. However, if an event takes place in reality, that it happened can be investigated independently of its source or cause. Third, when the second problem is removed, investigation of Jesus’ being seen after his death and burial is well established, and no naturalistic explanation can account for the event. If no naturalistic explanation can account for an event that has been historically investigated and confirmed happened, then only a non-natural or supernatural explanation (miracle) is possible; thus miraculous events were recorded in the gospels. Fourth, if it can be established that Jesus did rise from the dead (to be investigated later in the book), then his metaphysical (and theological) teachings and actions must be considered relevant to the reader.

The historical Jesus Book 4

Chapter 4: Reinterpretations of the Historical Jesus

Many scholars grant the failures of the views critiqued in the previous chapter, yet they still wish to reject the Christian worldview. So many have attempted to reinterpret the historically established events of Jesus’ life. Habermas investigates these attempts in this fourth chapter.

The majority of these proposed alternate lives of Jesus depend upon the idea that Jesus did not die by crucifixion as recorded in the gospels. Many offers that Jesus merely appeared to be dead and after being removed from the cross and placed in the tomb, he recovered enough to escape and went on to live a secret life. While there are numerous versions of this “swoon” theory, all of them fail on three major accounts. The first is that Roman crucifixion was extremely brutal and would have left Jesus in such horrific condition that he could not escape from a sealed tomb, much less, convince anyone he had “overcome” death. Second, crucifixion caused death by asphyxiation due to the inability to breathe while hanging from the cross when the muscles are relaxed. This means that it was not possible to appear dead on the cross without actually being dead. Third, the Roman executioners ensured Jesus’ death by thrusting the spear into his side and puncturing his heart. Even if faking death on the cross was possible, this final blow would have killed Jesus immediately. Because of these reasons, the swoon theories have all been rejected by scholars.

Even though the failure of this foundation of the alternate lives of Jesus theories is enough to reject those theories, they fail on other accounts as well. These theories, of course, come in many different versions. Some hold that the Gospels and Paul recorded incorrect information and the real events of Jesus post-crucifixion life is unknown, and others hold that Jesus traveled to other places in the world. All of the theories fail for multiple reasons. They contradict already established historical records (the Gospels). They appear late. They have no historical grounds. And the arguments require multiple fallacies to come to their conclusions. Along with those commonly held failures, Habermas also discusses several additional failures that are unique to the various theories. He ends by stating that, because of the incredible list of reasons that these theories fail, they are not taken seriously by historians today, but they needed to be addressed due to their continual recurrence within popular culture.

The historical Jesus Book 5

Chapter 5: The New Gnosticism

One of the more popular challenges in historical Jesus studies comes from the discovery of several texts dated from the mid-to-late second century to the early third century. These are the Gnostic writings, with The Gospel of Thomas probably being the most familiar to the public. Some scholars believe that these text raise a power challenge against orthodox teachings about Jesus due to their traditionally early dating. The Gospel of Thomas is dated as early as AD 140 (all the others are date much later). Supporters of the Gnostic view attempt to date the tradition that is contained within the Gospel of Thomas in the first century, and they contend that due to the early sourcing, it should at least be held on the same authoritative level as the Gospels. Now, the significance of this dating is that, if the dating is correct, then it is possible that there were multiple expressions of Christianity at the time. The competing claim is that the New Testament that we have today is incomplete and that these Gnostic writings are the “lost books” of the Bible that tell a very different story about the historical Jesus. The Gospel of Thomas lacks mention of the crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus, so the Gnostics claim that these events did not take place (what makes the view incompatible with orthodoxy). They claim that what is known as orthodoxy today merely won a “cultural war” among the different views and is not a reflection of actual events in history.

Having presented this strong challenge of the Gnostic view against the orthodox view of the historical Jesus, Habermas turns to a four-pronged critique of the view. First, even if The Gospel of Thomas is accurately dated early at AD 140 and its tradition is still earlier, the gospels have all been dated a minimum of half a century earlier than even that, which places their source material closer to the events they record than the source material of the Gospel of Thomas. This means that the Gnostic gospels and the Gospels were not co-circulating at the earliest times; the Gospels were present at least fifty years before the Gnostics showed up and (as will be seen later) within only a few years of Jesus’ death. Secondly, Habermas presents four standards of ancient historiography that establish the accuracy of the Gospels’ historical records. This serves to hold authority over later writings that present contradictory stories (the Gnostic writings, in this case).

Thirdly, based upon the testimony present in various books of the New Testament and in the writings of the apostolic fathers, we can see that the canon of Scripture was well established prior to the dates of many of the Gnostic writings. This means that Christians had recognized the earliest writings as accurate and authoritative before the greater body of Gnostic writings (and their contradictory content) were even present. Fourthly, even though the death and Resurrection of Jesus are not mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, that is not evidence that it did not happen, especially when we have four earlier records that record that they did happen. Interestingly enough, proponents of the Gnostic view hold that the proposed document “Quelle” or “Q”, that is the source for the similarities among the synoptic Gospels, did not contain information of Jesus’ death and crucifixion, but this is speculation as both the existence and content of the document are hotly debated. Even if they were right about the content’s absence, its absence still would not argue against its actually taking place. For these four reasons, scholars generally do not consider Gnosticism a viable alternative view for the historical Jesus; Gnosticism or elements of it is vastly more popular among non-scholars.

The historical Jesus Book 6

Chapter 6: The Jesus Seminar and the Historical Jesus

Another way to dismiss the historical Jesus (as recorded in the gospels) is put forth by people in the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar tends to see their position as a compromise between those who reject all historicity of the records in the gospels and those who take every word of it historically. Their position begins philosophically with, not just the rejection of the supernatural, but the very incompatibility of the supernatural with reality. Using this filter, they reject all records in the gospels that include any kind of non-natural event, including all experiences with Jesus after his crucifixion; however, they do tend to believe that the events that required no such non-natural mechanism are historically accurate.
Habermas explains that the Jesus Seminar does not really offer as much of a “compromise” position as they like to think. The primary reason for this is before any investigation on their part has begun, they have already ruled out even the possibility of many of the historical events taking place. They have already rejected the only explanation of the events, so they are unable to perform an unbiased investigation of the historical data. With this critique in place, some Seminar scholars have pulled back on some of the extreme conclusions and have opted for agnosticism on the historicity of different non-natural events. These more moderate Seminar scholars offer several naturalistic explanations for the records of the non-natural events; however, Habermas shows how they fail to account for the historical data and/or commit various fallacies. He also demonstrates how their hypotheses are often contradicted by the historical evidence. Ultimately, he concludes that the various positions offered by Jesus Seminar scholars are not historically viable and should be rejected.

The historical Jesus Book 7

Part 2: Historical Data for the Life of Jesus

Chapter 7: Primary Sources: Creeds and Facts

Having surveyed and dismantled the many different attempts to separate the historical Jesus from the Jesus of the gospels, Habermas now turns to an investigation of what can be known about the historical Jesus and early Christian theology apart from the New Testament gospels. He begins by evaluating the creeds, hymns, and traditions that were closest to the death of Jesus. These sources originated prior to the formation of the New Testament and are recorded within it. Several, among many others, can be found in the following passages of the New Testament:

  • 1 John 4:2
  • 2 Timothy 2:8
  • Romans 1:3-4
  • 1 Timothy 3:16
  • Phillippians 2:6
  • Romans 10:9
  • 1 Corinthians 11:23
  • 1 Timothy 6:13
  • 1 Peter 3:18

Taking the reader through the many early sources, Habermas demonstrates over forty different characteristics of Jesus Christ that were both believed by the early Christians and passed down through the centuries to today. In this exercise, Habermas demonstrates that the Jesus of Christianity is indistinguishable from the Jesus believed by the earliest Christians. These orthodox beliefs were not the product of any single or series of events that took place over time; the beliefs appeared early and suddenly.

Habermas also spends a considerable portion of the chapter evaluating the creed in 1 Corinthians 15. This creed is often considered to be one of the most important because it ties the beliefs of the earliest Christians to eyewitness testimony of those who walked with Jesus and had experiences of the risen Jesus. Because of this eyewitness connection, this early creed not only opens the door to historical testing of the events surrounding Jesus and the claims that He and the early Christians made, but it compels such testing. Thorough testing has been performed on at least twelve unique claims of the historical Jesus regarding the most important event: the Resurrection. That testing has revealed the facticity of those twelve claims; however, Habermas believes that only four of them are sufficient to establish the historicity of the Resurrection event. He spends a small portion of the chapter explaining this “minimal facts” apologetic, but for those who wish to go deeper into this specific historical event, check out Habermas’ book “The Risen Jesus and Future Hope” along with his many other writings at GaryHabermas.com.

The historical Jesus Book 8

Chapter 8: Archaeological Sources

Archaeology has provided evidence of the historical context surrounding the life of Jesus, has provided corroboration for several of the historical claims within the gospels, and may even provide compelling evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. One of the most contested (non-miraculous) events recorded in the gospels is that of the census described by Luke. Habermas explains how archaeology has not only helped answer some of the questions this event but has also provided calibration tools for identifying the year of Jesus’ death. Archaeology has also yielded much information about the ancient practice of crucifixion that corroborates reports in the gospels. For instance, the skeleton of “Yohanan,” a crucifixion victim, was discovered in 1968. This particular discovery has provided information regarding the condition of the victim as they were nailed to a cross, the excruciating way a victim was nailed to a cross, many painful events that happened to the body while on the cross, and the ultimate cause of death. This data has given medical and historical researchers ways to test the claims surrounding Jesus’ mode of execution and have found them to be accurate.

Probably the most controversial archaeological find surrounding the historical Jesus is the Shroud of Turin. Tradition has it that this linen is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Many visual commonalities provide a powerful case for this claim, including the blood stains that are common to victims of a crucifixion and other stains that are unique to Jesus’ crucifixion. The absence of evidence of bodily decomposition suggests that the victim was not in the cloth for long. And some Christians believe that the “scorch” marks that are inconsistent with foreign materials provide evidence of a resurrection. However, carbon dating has seriously challenged the identification of the Shroud with the first century AD, but even these studies have come under scrutiny due to lack of peer review and blind testing, possible contamination, and inconsistency with other pieces of evidence. Habermas explains that even if the Shroud is not that of Jesus, it could still be that of a victim who suffered a remarkably similar fate, thus still providing powerful evidence of the practice of crucifixion. He also explains that if the Shroud is, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus, archaeologists have powerful tangible evidence not only Jesus’ mode of death but the historical event of His Resurrection as well.

Chapter 9: Ancient Non-Christian Sources

Of all the figures in ancient history, Jesus is the most mentioned. The mentions not only come in ancient Christian writings but also in those of non-Christian sources. Habermas takes the reader through the different ancient historians’ and other writers’ material that mentions Jesus. Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are just a few. As Habermas describes these writings (and several others) and how they have been preserved in antiquity, he quotes directly from them, highlighting not just the mention of Jesus but also all the information about Jesus’ life, His teachings, and His death that are recorded.

He also discusses the most controversial of them all: Josephus. He quotes the disputed and undisputed texts along with a proposed “original version” of the disputed text that would be more consistent with Josephus’ worldview as a Jewish historian. Habermas takes the undisputed portions along with the proposal to demonstrate several facts recorded by Josephus regarding Jesus. Habermas even cautiously uses Gnostic writings to help support certain claims about the historical Jesus that are found in other non-Christian sources. Habermas concludes from all these ancient non-Christian sources that even if Christian sources (discussed in the next chapter) are disregarded, it is established that the Jesus of the Bible existed in history and many true things can be known about Him.

The historical Jesus Book 9

Chapter 10: Ancient Christian Sources (Non-New Testament)

Of course, the ancient writings of the historical Jesus are not limited to non-Christian sources. Many Christian sources outside the New Testament were also composed and circulated.  These authors included Clement of Rome, Ignatious, Justin Martyr, among others. These early sources give historians an understanding of early Christian doctrine and what the early Church believed about the historical Jesus. Habermas discusses each author that builds a total description of Jesus’ life, teachings, death, and resurrection that echoes the claims of the New Testament. These records indicate that the early Church already believed what was written in the New Testament; they did not wait to see who the “winners” were regarding orthodoxy.

Many people believe that the fact that these writers were Christian made them unjustifiably biased in their beliefs and that makes them unreliable sources. However, because much of their beliefs about the historical Jesus were based upon the material in the New Testament (only one generation removed, in some cases), which was shown to be trustworthy in the previous chapters, these early Christian authors were certainly justified in their beliefs.  Because they were justified in believing what they recorded, their records stand firmly as a testimony of the beliefs of the earliest Christians.

Chapter 11: Summary and Assessment

Having concluded a survey of the historical evidence that could speak to the historical Jesus and various challenges to his existence, Habermas succinctly summarizes what can be known from the historical evidence alone. He lists out 129 things that can be known about the historical Jesus relating to His life, work, death, and resurrection. These facts are gathered from 45 different ancient Christian and non-Christian sources. The sheer number of ancient sources that give pertinent information about the life of Jesus is more than enough to conclude by the standards of historiography that the historical Jesus is the same Jesus that is recorded in the Bible. If the Jesus of the Bible is to be separated from the Jesus of history, the entire enterprise of ancient historical studies is called into question.

The historical Jesus Book 10

Reviewer’s Thoughts

The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Jesus was an exciting read! I came to the book originally with many questions about what could be truly known about the historical Jesus, but as I read through it, my questions were answered. As my original questions were answered, more questions formulated in my mind that Habermas seemed to almost anticipate. It has been over a decade since my initial read through the book when these questions were answered. It was refreshing and encouraging to read through it again because over the last decade, some curiosities have come up that I had forgotten were addressed in the book. When these come up in conversation, I am now more prepared to “give a reason for the hope that I have” (1 Peter 3:15).

When I first read the book in my early 20s, it was very understandable at that time (it answered my basic questions), yet it is comprehensive and deep enough to have addressed the more nuanced challenges that I have been exposed to over the years. Habermas really made the historical facts come to life for me and give me a more connected feeling to the actual events of history. This not only excited me but gave me a profound sense of satisfaction that my belief is justified true belief, justified by the evidence of history.

If you are having serious doubts about the historical Jesus, you definitely need to get this book. And if your church has a library, it needs to be on the shelf for those who have these deep questions and are honestly looking for answers. For any Christian who regularly discusses the truth of Christianity (that should be all of us), you also need this book. It will give you a resource to always be prepared to answer both the basic and the deeper challenges of those who are skeptical of the historical foundations of our worldview. Nearly two thousand years ago, the Apostle John proclaimed, “The Word (Jesus) became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth,” and history bears a fantastic witness to this truth.

 

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

/by
Do We Have Reasons to Believe in God’s Existence

Do We Have Reasons to Believe in God’s Existence?

,

By Brian Chilton

Recently, news agencies filled the airwaves and the internet with the news of Stephen Hawking’s last book to be published and released posthumously. The book released on October 16, 2018, is entitled Brief Answers to the Big Questions. Hawking argues through a series of essays why he didn’t think that God existed, did not think it was possible for God to exist, and did not believe in an afterlife. He appeals to quantum mechanics and the bizarre behavior of quantum particles which seemingly appear to pop into existence from nothing to argue his case. However, it should be noted that quantum particles do not really pop into existence from nothing as philosophically understood to be “no-thing.” Rather, quantum particles derive from a quantum vacuum—a very physical thing with very physical properties and processes. Thus, while admittedly I am not a physicist nor a physicist’s son, Hawking’s claim is not honest with the scientific data.

This causes one to ask, do we have good reasons to believe in God’s existence? I would like to propose ten reasons why we can believe that he does. To be forthright, there are many, many more. These represent some of the more popular reasons to believe that there really is a God who transcends reality and a few that I think stand to reason by the very nature of the way the world works.

  1. Necessity of a First Cause (Cosmological Argument). Physicists Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin discovered a mathematical theorem which dictates that all physical universes, including the theoretical multiverse, must have a required starting point. There was a time when physics (even quantum physics), time, and matter did not exist. How did it come to be? Atheists will argue that it just is. However, the data seems to suggest that an eternal, metaphysical (beyond the physical realm), Mind brought everything to be. That Mind would need to be omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. That Mind is who we know to be God.
  2. Designed Creation (Teleological Argument). Hugh Ross has argued that there are over 180 cosmological constants in the universe so finely tuned that if they were to be changed by the nth degree, life and the universe itself would not exist. Even the theoretical multiverse would need to be designed to such a degree that it would require a designer. I believe wholeheartedly that physicists will eventually find design attributes and constants in the quantum realm if they haven’t already. Design argues for a Designer.
  3. Objective Morality (Moral Argument). Leaving the scientific realm for the philosophical and ethical, objective morality argues for an Objective Lawgiver. God is the best explanation for why objective morality exists. As Brian Manuel, a good friend of mine, said recently, “We can just know certain things to be right and wrong without even being taught.” He is absolutely right! People have an innate sense of morality. That comes from a Moral Lawgiver who we know to be God.
  4. Necessary Being (Ontological Argument). In the end, one only has two options. Either an eternal nothingness (meaning again, “no-thing,” not even quantum particles) brought forth something from absolute nothingness, or an eternal Being brought everything that exists into being. The latter makes far more sense and actually adheres more to the scientific method than the former.
  5. Explanation for Data (Information Argument). Why is there anything at all? Even though the quantum world is a strange place, it still behaves according to certain laws. Why are there quantum particles? Quantum fields? Why do physical processes and procedures exist? One explanation: God. For any data to exist, a programmer must exist. That Programmer must be God himself.
  6. Science and Mathematics. Ironically, the scientific method and mathematics appeal to God’s existence. Scientists hold that the universe operates according to certain laws on a regular basis. The ability to do science itself means that human beings have been given cognitive abilities to observe the universe and, interestingly, have been placed in a position where the universe is observable. One must inadvertently appeal to the divine to even do science and mathematics. To add to this point, the beauty one finds in nature would have no real aesthetic value unless God exists.
  7. Historicity of Jesus’s Resurrection. One of the most historically provable events of ancient history is Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection. Jesus’s resurrection is quite intriguing because he continuously appealed to God the Father to raise him from the dead. For Jesus to have risen from the dead indicates that the one whom he mentioned did what Jesus claimed he would do. The resurrection of Jesus points to a transcendent reality we call God.
  8. Miracles and Spiritual Encounters. Craig Keener wrote a two-volume work describing the many documented miracles in modern times. While God may not always perform a miracle in every circumstance, a good deal of evidence suggests that God has performed miracles throughout history. Added with the many spiritual encounters people have had with the divine provides an added case that God does indeed exist.
  9. Near-Death Experiences and Consciousness. This is a fascinating area of study. Gary Habermas has noted that there are over 100 medically confirmed cases of near-death experiences where people have died and reported events that happened on this side of eternity which could be corroborated by others. The events described along with experiences of meeting God and the feelings of peace add to the case for God’s existence. Most certainly near-death experiences prove that materialism is a dead philosophy.
  10. Purpose and Meaning. For anything to have purpose and meaning, God must exist. If Hawking is right in that the universe is all there is and there is nothing else, nothing, including his research, has any meaning or value. Meaning, value, and purpose are found only because God exists.

I could certainly list other reasons to believe in God’s existence. But these will suffice for now. Hawking was a man of great intellect. Yet, despite his great mental prowess, it is quite odd that he could never quite see the evidence for God. While he could see, he was quite blind. Hawking said that “religion is a fairy tale for those afraid of the dark.” I believe John Lennox provided a stronger claim by noting that “atheism is a fairy tale for those afraid of the light.”

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the Senior Pastor of Westfield Baptist Church in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2qcNP6q

/by
How To Be Civil With A Political Party That “Wants To Destroy You”

How To Be Civil With A Political Party That “Wants To Destroy You”

By Michael Sherrard 

Hillary Clinton has thrown more fuel on an already raging fire. In a recent interview, she stated very plainly that until the left has power again, they cannot be civil. If not for the fact that this advice will be followed by many to extreme ends, I’d just laugh at the extreme irony of saying “after I beat you up, I’ll be nice to you.”

Well, I think there is a better way, the way of Jesus Christ namely. It’s a way that involves loving your enemies, praying for those that persecute you, and making a reasonable case for your beliefs with gentleness and respect. For the level-headed Americans that remain, here are three ways you can still be civil in an age of incivility.

  1. Listen

The profound lack of listening today is probably both the greatest source of frustration and anger and also the easiest problem to fix. Just shut up. Seriously, learn to shut up. You don’t always have to run your mouth. Instead, listen to your opponent. Listen without the goal of correction. Listen with the goal of understanding. Who knows, maybe you’ll learn something. You’ve been wrong before. Perhaps you are wrong now. What have you got to lose? At the very least, after you have truly listened to your opponent, you will understand better how to proceed in persuading them that their position is flawed in some way. But truth be told, the greatest thing that comes from listening isn’t convincing, it’s compassion. It is easy to hate ideas. It is not as easy to hate an individual. And when you listen and listen well, you are able to hear the person along with their position. This leads to unity and productive conversations. I know it’s a novel idea, but you should give listening a try.

  1. Learn 

Everybody today is an expert. That is of course sarcasm. The truth is that everybody thinks they are an expert. However, very few can actually explain their beliefs if it requires more than 144 characters or a picture. Personal beliefs today have a profound lack of depth that stems from a deterioration of critical thinking. Beliefs are formed from a pop culture more than reasoned thinking and meaningful reflection, and many accept simply what feels good rather trying to discern what is good. The solution is knowledge. A fundamental component of civil discourse is accurate knowledge of both your position and your opponents. If you cannot explain why your position is true, you are not allowed to talk about it. And I’ll take it a step further. If you do not know why your opponent thinks their position is the correct one, you are not allowed to attack it. I know this is a novel idea, but if you don’t have anything good to say because you don’t know what the heck you are talking about, you ought not say anything at all.

  1. Love

Find a way to love your political opponent. They are in your neighborhood, workplace, school, and church. Now, don’t misunderstand my point here. I think listening to your opponent and learning more about the relevant issues of our time is an act of love. If you do just the above two points, you will have given a great gift to this world. But let’s go a bit further. Go out of your way this week to be kind and serve those that disagree with you. Instead of spending all your mental energy plotting how to belittle your enemy with a clever meme, think instead how you can build them up. They are struggling with life just like you are. Their finances are in trouble. They are suffering broken relationships in their family. They have just received news that their child has cancer. But, hey, feel free to attack their character because they disagree with you on a political issue. Kick them while they are down. Or, be humble and serve them. I’ll let you choose.

This is a time for us all to follow the example of Jesus who did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited but humbled himself by taking the form of a servant. And as a servant, He died on the cross in order to purchase our redemption. Let us all live in this manner, a manner worthy of the gospel, and let us all be civil even to those not worthy of it.

 

Michael C. Sherrard is a pastor, a writer, and a speaker. Booking info and such can be found at michaelcsherrard.com.

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

/by