Tag Archive for: Jesus

“How Would You Respond to This”

“How Would You Respond to This?”

,

By Timothy Fox

Once people discover that you’re a Christian thinker, they often start coming to you with all of the objections they hear:

“The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

“Jesus never existed.”

“Science disproves God.”

Your friends will offer you the objections and ask, “How would you respond to this?” And here is what I always say: “I wouldn’t.” I never respond to objections.

But wait, aren’t I an apologist? Isn’t it my responsibility to provide an answer to people’s objections? Not necessarily. Let me explain.

Offense and Defense

The same way that a football team has an offensive line and a defensive line, apologetics can be divided into offense – giving arguments for the truthfulness of Christianity – and defense – responding to objections against Christianity. So, when someone raises an objection to Christianity, they are trying to put you on defense. And while arguing against other religions and worldviews does take a lot of study, defensive apologetics is a whole lot easier. Here’s why: It isn’t your job to respond to a skeptic’s objection. It’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection. So in reality, you aren’t on defense, the skeptic is!

Let’s look back at the objections above and ask some simple questions to deflate them:

Skeptic: “The Bible is hopelessly corrupt.”

Me: “Really? How do you know that?”

Now instead of me defending the reliability of the Bible, I’ve turned the tables and put the skeptic on defense. How does he know the Bible is hopelessly corrupt? What does he know about the transmission of the biblical texts?

Skeptic: “Jesus never existed.”

Me: “Why do you think that?”

Jesus mythicism is popular on the internet, but it’s a joke in scholarly circles. So force the skeptic to back up his claims. If Jesus isn’t real, who invented him and why? What do real historians think about this?

Skeptic: “Science disproves God.”

Me: “How exactly does science disprove God?”

Sure, you could have given a lecture on how science points us to a divine Creator, through the cosmological, fine-tuning, and design arguments. But why should you do all the heavy lifting? That’s the skeptic’s job! Let the skeptic try to make a scientific case against God’s existence, and if he can’t, then show how science actually provides evidence for God’s existence. That’s much more impactful.

Defending objections to Christianity is simple once you realize that it isn’t your job to defend against the objection; it’s the skeptic’s job to defend the objection itself.

Now, is it always this easy? Of course not. You may come across a very knowledgeable skeptic with a really tough objection that can’t be easily questioned away. But you can still keep your cool: “Wow, that’s an interesting objection and I’ve never thought of that before. I’ll look into it and get back to you.” Then you do your homework and resolve to never get stumped by the same question twice. But more often than not, some simple questions are all it takes to deflate a skeptic who hasn’t thought very much about his objections to Christianity.

Conclusion

Evangelizing and engaging in spiritual conversations can be very intimidating, especially when people have such a wide range of beliefs and may even be outright hostile to Christianity. But Jesus commanded his followers to go out and make disciples (Matt. 28:19). And when the tough objections come, we are called to defend our faith (1 Pet. 3:15). However, you don’t need hours and hours of study before you can begin sharing the gospel and defending your faith. Sometimes all it takes is a few simple questions.

To learn more about the tactical approach to engaging in spiritual conversations, check out Tactics by Greg Koukl. It’s the #1 book I recommend to anyone interested in apologetics. Seriously, buy it now.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Rns5B9

/by
Did Jesus Appeal To Evidence When Reaching Out To Skeptics

Did Jesus Appeal To Evidence When Reaching Out To Skeptics?

,

By Wintery Knight

Investigation in progress.

From Eric Chabot of Ratio Christi – Ohio State University.

He lists eight ways that Jesus makes his case.

Here’s one of the ways:

Jesus Appealed to Evidence

Jesus knew He could not show up on the scene and not offer any evidence for His Messiahship. In his book On Jesus, Douglas Groothuis notes that Jesus appealed to evidence to confirm His claims. John the Baptist, who was languishing in prison after challenging Herod, sent messengers to ask Jesus the question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” (Matt. 11:3). This may seem an odd question from a man the Gospels present as the prophetic forerunner of Jesus and as the one who had proclaimed Jesus to be the Messiah. Jesus, however, did not rebuke John’s question. He did not say, “You must have faith; suppress your doubts.” Instead, Jesus recounted the distinctive features of His ministry:

“Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.” (Matt. 11:4-6; see also Luke 7:22).

Even in the Messiah Apocalypse, which is dated between 100 and 80 B.C.E mentions a similar theme as seen in Matt.11: 4-6: “He [God] frees the captives, makes the blind see, and makes the bent over stand straight…for he will heal the sick, revive the dead, and give good news to the humble and the poor he will satisfy, the abandoned he will lead, and the hungry he will make rich.”

Jesus’ works of healing and teaching are meant to serve as positive evidence of His messianic identity, because they fulfill the messianic predictions of the Hebrew Scriptures. What Jesus claimed is this:

If one does certain kinds of actions (the acts cited above), then one is the Messiah.

I am doing those kinds of actions.

Therefore, I am the Messiah.

And:

The Miracles of Jesus

In the Bible, miracles have a distinctive purpose: they are used for three reasons:
1. To glorify the nature of God (John 2:11; 11:40)
2. To accredit certain persons as the spokesmen for God (Acts 2:22; Heb. 2:3–4)
3.To provide evidence for belief in God (John 6:2, 14; 20:30–31). (3)

Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, told Jesus, “‘Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him’ ” (Jn. 3:1–2). In Acts, Peter told the crowd that Jesus had been “accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him” (Acts 2:22).

In Matthew 12:38-39, Jesus says, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of Jonah the prophet.” In this Scripture, God confirmed the Messianic claim when Jesus said the sign that would confirm his Messiahship was to be the resurrection.

It is important to note that not all witnesses to a miracle believe. Jesus did not do His miracles for entertainment. They were done to evoke a response. So perhaps Paul Moser is right on target in what he calls “kardiatheology” – a theology that is aimed at one’s motivational heart (including one’s will) rather than just at one’s mind or one’s emotions. In other words, God is very interested in moral transformation.

We see Jesus’ frustration when His miracles did not bring the correct response from his audience. “Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (John 12:37). Jesus himself said of some, “They will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). One result, though not the purpose, of miracles is condemnation of the unbeliever (cf. John 12:31, 37). (4)

I am forever pointing this out to people. Jesus didn’t get people to follow him because he was nice. And he didn’t just talk to people who agreed with him. He even promised “a wicked generation” his resurrection as evidence for his claims. He called his resurrection “the sign of Jonah”, and it was meant for people who were looking for a “sign”. This is the way we should be – using whatever evidence we can dig up from science, history, law, and even the social sciences (when arguing moral issues).

Read the rest here. Surprise! Jesus loves to convince people, and not just by quoting the Bible to people who already accept the Bible, either. His goal was not to make people accept his claims because of their feelings, but because of the evidence, he offered them.

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2PXLO94

/by
Did Jesus Exist

¿Existió Jesús?

By Evan Minton

I don’t know why, but 99% of the atheists I talk to on the Internet hold the ridiculous position that Jesus never existed. But then, they’re atheists. I don’t expect them to believe in the divinity of Jesus. How could they? If they did, they wouldn’t be atheists. They would be Christians. No. I’m not talking about believing in the divinity of Jesus here, but about believing in Jesus as a historical figure. That’s what I find so ridiculous. Those who deny the Christ myth are clinging to a historical hypothesis that would make them the laughing stock of every university in the world. Almost every scholar of ancient history holds this view, and those who are in a minority, a minority, a minority are rightly seen as charlatans. By the way, those who believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood historical figure are not Christians. Atheist and agnostic scholars also believe that Jesus was a historical figure. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and one of the most outspoken critics of Christianity, believes that Jesus was a real, flesh-and-blood historical person. He writes: “I think the evidence that Jesus existed is so overwhelming that it is foolish to claim otherwise. I don’t know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is trained in the historical method, or anyone who is a biblical scholar and who works that way, who gives any credence to any of that.” 

Why is this the case? Why do almost all scholars of ancient history believe that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood figure in history? Is the evidence for Jesus’ historicity as overwhelming as agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman claims? Let’s see.

*The existence of Jesus is more than amply attested in secular sources, non-Christian extra-biblical sources, and in the New Testament documents.

Jesus is mentioned in so many sources in the first century and early second century that it is absurd to claim that He never existed. What are those sources? Well, we have the gospels and the epistles of the New Testament. But everyone already knows them, so I am not going to cite them. Instead, I am going to cite merely the non-Christian, extra-biblical sources.

1: Flavius ​​Josephus

Josephus mentions Jesus (and other New Testament figures) in his writings. In Flavius ​​Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews (written in 90 AD), Josephus writes:

“About that time there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he was a wonder-worker, a teacher of men who welcomed the truth. Many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles were attracted to him. They called him the Christ, and when Pilate, acting on the suggestion of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the beginning did not forsake him; he appeared to them resurrected on the third day, just as the divine prophets had foretold, and they said ten thousand other astonishing things about him. The existence of Christians, the name they took from him from that time on, continues to this day.”

“Antiquities of the Jews”, 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what might be called a brief reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother James at the hands of the high priest Ananus.

“But as we said, the young man Ananus who received the high priesthood was of a courageous temper and exceptionally bold; he was a partisan of the Sadducees, who were severe in passing judgment on all the Jews, as we have already shown. Since Ananus was of such a temper, he thought he had now a great opportunity since Festus was dead and Albinus was still on the way; so he formed a council of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ, whose name was James, together with others; and having accused them of being offenders, he handed them over to be stoned.”

Here we have an early secular source that mentions Jesus and a handful of followers who clearly believed He was the promised Messiah (or Christ) of their Jewish religion. It also mentions Pontius Pilate and says that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate at the suggestion of the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is pretty good non-Christian and non-Biblical evidence that affirms the existence of Jesus, the existence of Pontius Pilate, that Jesus had a handful of followers who considered Him to be the Christ, and that the Sanhedrin brought Jesus before Pontius Pilate and that he condemned Him to die on a cross. Josephus also claims that Jesus had a brother named James who was murdered by the Sanhedrin.

“BUT!” The one who believes that Christ is a myth may protest . This passage has obviously been interpolated by a Christian. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian. And yet he says things like “He was the Christ”  and “He appeared to them resurrected on the third day .”  Therefore, we cannot include this passage from Josephus because it was not a genuine passage that he wrote. It was more likely written by a Christian scribe who included this passage in order to subliminally evangelize people. But are the skeptics right? Is this passage really not historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? There are a few things to consider.

First, very few scholars believe that the entire passage was invented by a Christian. Certainly, it is indisputable that there have been interpolations in this passage, but that does not mean that the whole thing was invented. Most scholars believe that there was an original passage about Jesus included in the Flavian testimony, but that it was subtly modified by a Christian scribe.

There are very good reasons why scholars have adopted the theory of “partial authenticity.”

1: A good portion of the text is written in Josephus’s dramatic style and vocabulary. That is, the fragments believed to be original to Josephus reflect his typical writing style.

Christopher Price wrote: “Perhaps the most important factor leading most scholars to accept the partial authenticity position is that a substantial part of the TF reflects the language and style of Josephus . Moreover, when the obvious Christian references—which are rich in New Testament vocabulary and non-core language—are removed or restored to the original, the remainder of the core passage is coherent and flows appropriately. We can be confident that there was minimal reference to Jesus… for once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the remainder makes good grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are connected parenthetically to the narrative; therefore, they are grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections, moreover, are broken up, and when they are removed, the flow of thought is improved and more harmonious.”

Graham Stanton claims that “once the obvious Christian additions are removed , the remaining comments are consistent with the vocabulary and style of Josephus”  (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, p. 143). The most recent and comprehensive study of the Flavian testimony was undertaken by John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew, Volume 1. According to Meier,  “many key words and phrases in the testimony are either absent from the NT or are used in it in entirely different ways; instead, nearly all of the core words of the testimony are found elsewhere in Josephus’ work—indeed, much of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus”  (Meier, op. cit., p. 63).

  1. The reference to James, the brother of Jesus, suggests an earlier reference to Jesus.

The validity of Josephus’ reference to the martyrdom of James increases the likelihood that the TF is also valid. In Josephus’ reference to James, he names Jesus as “the so-called Christ” without further explanation . That’s all he says. When he refers to James, he says he is the brother of “ Jesus, the so-called Christ.” Josephus gives no further explanation of who Jesus was , what he did, no reference to his death or resurrection from the dead, no mention of any miracles, or anything like that. All he says is that James is the brother of Jesus. The way the passage about James reads makes it seem as if Josephus was assuming that his readers already knew who he was talking about. This would make sense if the Flavian Testimony were a legitimate passage. Because in that passage, Josephus has already briefly explained who this Jesus was and what he did, so that by the time his readers got to the passage about James, no further explanation would be necessary. However, Josephus’ lack of elaboration as to who Jesus was in the passage about James would make no sense if there were no earlier explanation of who he was, such as in the Flavian Testimony. Incidentally, no one doubts that Josephus’ reference to James is authentic.

For these two reasons and several more, most scholars believe that Josephus’ Flavian testimony is a genuine passage, even though it is obvious that some Christian scribe changed a few lines here and there. For more information on why Josephus’ passage was partially interpolated rather than completely invented, please click on the URL below.

“Did Josephus Refer To Jesus?” by Christopher Price —  http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The Mona Lisa

This topic arose from a talk given by Dr. Timothy McGrew. The talk was about extra-biblical evidence indicating the historical reliability of the New Testament. By the way, you can listen to this talk on YouTube. Anyway, Tim McGrew posted a picture of the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa had a mustache, and he compared it to Josephus’ interpolations of the passage about Jesus with the Mona Lisa having a mustache. He said:

“This is not a Leonardo da Vinci painting, and if the lights weren’t so bright, you can see why. It looks a little bit like the Mona Lisa… but… it has a moustache and a bit of a beard. Should we conclude, then, that there was no original painting? Or should we conclude that there was and that there is something that has been added… by someone else’s hand? What should we make of a moustache on the Mona Lisa? Well, fortunately in 1971, Shlomo Pines published some work he had been doing on an Arabic manuscript that contained this passage.”

And it is in this Arabic text that we find the passage without the confusing fragments that seem to be Christian interpolations.

“whose conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people from among the Jews and from other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to crucifixion and death, and those who were his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him.  THEY  REPORTED that he appeared to them 3 days after his crucifixion. Consequently , they believed that he was the Messiah just as the prophets had said ”  (emphasis mine)

Tim McGrew then asked the audience, “Do you see the difference? My guess is (and this is the opinion of most scholars) is that the passage was originally written by Josephus as we have it in this Arabic text… and then some Christian scribe couldn’t resist the urge to put a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He didn’t realize that what he was doing would raise doubts as to the authenticity of the report of this genuine passage and that of Josephus himself. As with the Mona Lisa, our inference is that there was indeed an original and it was not invented by the person who added the mustache and beard. Our best guess regarding the testimony is that Josephus actually wrote it and that it was interpolated. And fortunately, we have discovered a text that shows us why most scholars think more or less that is how it happened.”

2: Tacitus

Another secular document is the Annals of Cornelius Tacitus. In Annals 15.44, Tacitus recounts the burning of Rome to its foundations and says that everyone blamed Nero for burning the city. Nero tried to shift the blame to the Christians, and so he began to persecute them. Tacitus’ Annals date from 115 AD.

“But all the help that could come from man, all the rewards that the prince could grant, all the expiations that could be presented to the gods, were of no avail to free Nero from the infamy of supposing that he had ordered the conflagration, the burning of Rome. Therefore, to silence the rumours, he falsely accused and then punished the Christians, who were abhorred for their enormities. Christ, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition which had been for a time suppressed, broke out again, not only throughout Judea where the mischief originated, but also throughout the city of Rome, where everything disgusting and disgraceful that springs from all parts of the world finds its centre and becomes popular. Therefore, first of all those who were found guilty were arrested; Then, after his declaration, an immense crowd was accused, not so much of the crime of burning the city, but of their hatred of humanity.”

Again, Jesus and Pontius Pilate are mentioned in secular documents. Tacitus claims that Jesus existed and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. He then states that the movement that arose after Jesus died out for a time, then flared up again originating in Judea, and then spread to Rome. The New Testament claims the same thing; Jesus existed, was crucified by Pilate, his followers kept quiet for the next 50 days, and then at Pentecost, began to spread the gospel throughout the ancient world. And unlike the Josephus passage , no one debates this Tacitus passage. Everyone acknowledges that this passage from Tacitus’ Annals is authentic.

3: Pliny the Younger

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113 AD) was the governor of Bithynia. His correspondence with the Emperor Trajan in 106 AD included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extensive note to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to “curse Christ, which a true Christian cannot be induced to do.” He also described their actions and practices:

“They affirmed, however, that their whole fault, or their whole error, was that they were in the habit of meeting together on a certain appointed day before daybreak, when they would sing in alternate verses a hymn to Christ as if to a god, and bind themselves by a solemn oath never to do any infamous action, except never to commit fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, never to deny the faith if called upon to testify.”

Kyle Butt, author of many articles at Apologetics Press, had this to say regarding the Pliny passage I just quoted. Here is what Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press wrote.

“Pliny used the word ‘Christian’ or ‘Christians’ seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted word that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny, moreover, used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the initiator of the “sect.” This is the undeniable case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied to such an extent that it attracted the attention of the emperor and his magistrates in the days when Pliny wrote the letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as a real, historical person.”  – Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press, from the article titled: “The Historical Christ–Fact or Fiction? ”

4: Celsus

Celsus, a pagan philosopher of the second century, produced a vehement attack on Christianity entitled “The True Discourse” (in AD 178). Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. When this Jesus grew up, he began running around Palestine making extravagant claims of divinity. Celsus tells us that because of Jesus’ wild claims about himself, he displeased the Jewish authorities so intensely that they killed him. Although Celsus harshly ridiculed the Christian faith, he never went so far as to suggest that Jesus did not exist.

5: Mara bar-Serapion

Mara bar-Serapion was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus Christ sometime in AD 73. He left a manuscript as an inheritance to his son Serapion.

“What did the Athenians gain by killing Socrates? Famine and plagues came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What did the men of Samos gain by burning Pythagoras? In a moment, their land was covered by sand. What did the Jews gain by executing their wise king? It was after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and expelled from their land, live in utter dispersion. But Socrates did not die for doing good; he lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for doing good; he lived on in the statue of the goddess Hera. Nor did the wise king die for doing good; he lived on in the teachings he had imparted.”

This reference reveals several key points:

1) Jesus was considered a wise king.

2) Jesus was killed.

3) Jesus’ teachings endured.

Several of those who maintain that “Christ is a myth” have tried to argue that the “wise king” to whom Mara is referring is Jesus, but this is really a pathetic argument. For the sake of brevity, I will not address in depth the objections to the Mara bar-Serapion passage, but James Patrick Holding addresses these arguments at the following URL.

http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/serapion.php

In conclusion

For the sake of brevity, I could not go into all the secular sources that mention Jesus. But here is a list of all the historical sources that mention him.

Secular sources: Josephus , Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Phlegon, Celsus, Mara Bar Serapion, Suetonius and Thallus

New Testament sources:    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

Non-biblical Christian sources: Clement of Rome, Clement 2, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, The Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Ariston of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, The Gospel of Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter and Epistula Apostolorum.

Heretical writings: The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphal Book of John and The Treatise on the Resurrection.

We have an abundance of historical evidence to prove the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, the amount of historical evidence is staggering considering how unclear his person was. He had, at most, a three-year public ministry. Yet, He is mentioned in more sources than the Roman Emperor! If you count all the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus, He is mentioned in one more source than the Roman Emperor Caesar Tiberius! If you count the Christian sources (including the New Testament documents), Jesus beats Caesar 42 to 10! If you consider Jesus a mythological person in light of this historical evidence, you might believe the same about Caesar Tiberius, since we have more evidence confirming the existence of Jesus than Caesar Tiberius. To claim that Jesus is a myth and that Caesar Tiberius was a real person is to be inconsistent.

Now, why is this important? Because when historians examine history, they use certain tests for authenticity. If a passage in a history book passes one of these “tests,” then the historian concludes that the recorded event is more likely to be true than false. There are many such tests, but the one I am using in this post is known as “The Principle of Multiple Witnesses.” The Principle of Multiple Witnesses says that if an event is mentioned in more than one source, and if the sources do not support each other, then it is much more likely that that event actually happened. The more often a recorded event is mentioned, the more certain there is that the event recorded in that document is true. Why? Because the more independent the sources that something is found in, the much less likely it is that ALL of those people involved made up that exact same story.

Here I am applying the principle of multiple witnesses to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is mentioned in so many early independent sources that it is irrational to claim that ALL of these people made up this same fictional character… and then go on to talk about it as if he were real.

On top of that, several of these sources are hostile sources , as they are not only neutral to the claims of the Christian faith, but they even ridicule Jesus, in fact. These would be sources such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. These sources make their accounts historically true due to the principle of enemy testimony.

Objection: But these are not contemporary sources. These are late secondary sources! Show me contemporary sources or else I will not believe that Jesus existed!

Ah yes. The tired old argument of “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus.” Actually, we do have contemporary accounts of Jesus – they are known as the Gospels. As I have mentioned in other posts, we have good reason to believe that the vast majority of New Testament documents were written before 60 AD. But even if it were true that there were no contemporary accounts of Jesus, what would that prove? Would that be proof that Jesus never existed? Hardly. We don’t really have any contemporary historical evidence for many of the characters in history, but we know they existed because historical scholarship can compensate with techniques such as “declarations of interest” and independent corroboration. We have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that while not contemporary accounts, are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on – and yet we do have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that, while not contemporary accounts, are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on – and we do have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.) that were not contemporary accounts, but are still reliable since they are not that far removed from the events they reported on. And as for the gospels, which are contemporary accounts, they are rejected a priori because they were written by people who believed in Jesus and are allegedly partisan (although almost everyone who writes about history has some kind of partisanship). Furthermore, the kind of partisanship that the New Testament writers had was to say nothing about Jesus and all the things he did because that would get them thrown out of their synagogues, tortured, and killed.

For some reason, just because it is a non-contemporary account does not mean that it is not a reliable source. Secondary accounts, even if they are not highly regarded by a historian as first-hand or eyewitness accounts, are not considered worthless. Regarding some events and people in history, all we have are secondary accounts. So are we to conclude that they never happened? Of course not. Yet that is what those who hold that Christ is a myth do when it comes to the life and death of Jesus. They reject all secondary accounts (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) and they also reject the contemporary accounts that we do have (i.e., the gospels). Are they not aware of the fact that historians do not need contemporary accounts for recognized history? (If you think that is so, then you will have to rewrite most of what happened in history.) They accept both first-hand history and secondary accounts, among other factors.

Also, the thing about Josephus and Tacitus is that, although they were not alive when Jesus was on this earth, they were alive when there were still those who knew him and could tell them about him (Jesus, according to virtually all scholars, was crucified sometime between 30 AD or 33 AD and Josephus was born in 37 AD). I used an analogy of me talking about Richard Feynman, an American physicist well known for his work in quantum mechanics and who helped develop the atomic bomb. Although I was born after he died (Feynman died in 1988 and I was born in 1992), I am close enough to the events for them to be relevant. After all, I am growing up in an age when adults who did know Richard Feynman are still alive, and they can tell me about him (just pretend for a moment that I don’t have video recordings; Josephus didn’t have any either to go on). Are you saying that my testimony about Feynman should be invalidated because I was not a contemporary of his, even though I have parents, grandparents, and friends of my parents who were contemporaries of Feynman and from whom I was able to get all my information? Absurd. My point is that they are close enough to the events to be relevant sources, and almost all scholars in the field accept their testimony as valid evidence as to the historicity of Jesus, including non-Christian scholars (so we can be sure that they have no theological foundation to shred).

Objection: Why aren’t there more sources?

Some skeptics complain that there are not more historical sources that mention Jesus. They argue that if Jesus had been as influential an individual as the gospels claim, there would have to be many more historical documents that mention him. Of the secular sources, we only have 9 that mention Jesus. From there, they argue that He either did not exist or was not as influential as the Bible claims.

For some reason, very few documents of ancient history have survived to this day. As Ryan Turner, who works as a writer for CARM (Christian Research and Apologetics Ministry), put it in an article on Carm.org:  “There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the work of the Roman historian Tacitus, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes. In fact, Herod the Great’s secretary Nicholas of Damascus wrote a universal history of Roman history, which consisted of nearly 144 books of which, none have survived. Based on the textual evidence, there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The point is that there may have been more secular documents that talked about Jesus than we know about. But they have most likely deteriorated, been destroyed, or have not yet been discovered by archaeologists. If the documents were not copied over and over and over again at a fast enough pace, they probably would not have survived for 2,000 years. Furthermore, the evidence we have for Jesus is still pretty strong. His existence has been very, very, very, very, very amply demonstrated in 9 secular sources, 9 biblical sources, 20 non-biblical Christian sources, and 4 heretical sources.

Now, historians consider themselves extraordinarily lucky when they find 2 independent sources that mention something, but when it comes to Jesus’ existence, we have 42!  Some of these are contemporary sources; others are secondary. We have to ask ourselves: is it really rational to believe that such an individual is a fictional character when so many historians wrote about him? Jesus’ existence and crucifixion are mentioned in numerous independent and early sources. It is possible that there are more than we already know about, but they are eroded by the fact that this happens with documents that last thousands of years.

Objection: Jesus is a copy of pagan myths

Another argument that those who argue that “Christ is a myth” make is that Jesus was merely a copy of pagan gods. They cite the “similarities” between the two and claim that Christianity is simply a religion plagiarized from early pagan myths. Theoretically, let’s assume that we believe that Jesus was merely a myth and not a real, historical, flesh-and-blood individual. I’ve already written two separate articles pointing out the absurdity of this argument, so I won’t go into it here. Instead, I suggest you read these blog posts, and you can check them out when you have the time to do so.

1:  Is Jesus A Copy Of Pagan Myths ?

2:  Cartoons and Comics That Plagiarized Christianity (Satire)

Bottom line:  “Christ is a myth” is absurd. Jesus obviously existed, as did other New Testament characters. You can believe that Jesus was just an ordinary man if you want, but to claim that He never even existed is just ridiculous. The debate among ancient history scholars is not, “Did Jesus exist?” No. The debate is,  “Was Jesus more than a man? Did he say what the gospels say he said? Did he rise from the dead?”  These questions are topics of debate among scholars. But Jesus’ historical existence is taken for granted. And why shouldn’t it be? You’ve already seen the evidence.

If you wish to study this topic in more detail than I have presented here, see James Patrick Holding’s book, Shattering The Christ Myth, as well as Bart Ehrman’s book, Did Jesus Exist?

 

Evan Minton is a Christian apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith ( www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com ). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has participated in several debates which can be viewed in the “My Debates” section of Cerebral Faith. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Translated by Natalia Armando.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2DD2a5N

/by
Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God

Did Jesus Even Claim to Be God?

,

By J. Brian Huffling

I sat down with some Jehovah’s Witnesses who were visiting with me. The elder who was leading our study stated that Jesus never claimed to be God. Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Jesus is a created being. Liberal “Christians” argue that Jesus never claimed to be God. Many other groups say the same. If such is the case, then Christians have some explaining to do as they teach that Jesus is God. But did he ever claim this title for himself? Let’s look at what he actually said.

I am going to argue that, yes, Jesus, in fact, did claim to be God. This can be seen by the fact that he claimed to be identical with God in various ways.

Jesus Claimed to Be Identical with God

Jesus made statements about himself that were expressly made of Yahweh in the Old Testament. Let’s look at the OT claims and then Jesus’ claims.

“I AM”

One of the clearest passages of Jesus claiming to be God is his claiming to be Yahweh as being the great I AM of Exodus 3:14.

OT Claim: “God said to Moses, ‘I am who I am.’” The designation “I am” was solely reserved for Yahweh and was recognizes by the Jews as such. (Exodus 3:14)

Jesus Claim: “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.‘ 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple” (John 8:58-58). Clearly, the Jews understood Jesus to be making himself equal with God. That’s why they wanted to kill him.

First and the Last

OT Claim: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last; besides me, there is no god.’” (Isaiah 44:6)

Jesus’ Claim: “When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the first and the last, 18 and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.’” (Note for Jehovah’s Witnesses: This can’t be Jehovah since for them Jehovah never died.)

Having the Glory of God

Jesus claimed to have the glory that only God had.

OT Claim: “I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.”

Jesus’ Claim: “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”

His Acceptance of Worship

The OT and NT also forbade the worship of any other being, idol or otherwise (Exodus 20:1-4; Deut. 5:6-9; Acts 14:15; Rev. 22:8-9). However, Jesus accepted worship on several occasions and never reprimanded anyone else for it (Matt. 14:33; Matt. 20:28; John 9:38; John 20:28). In this last example, Thomas explicitly calls Jesus God and Jesus didn’t correct him.

He Claimed to Have Authority and Equality with God

Throughout Matthew 5 Jesus claims his words have the same authority as God. Repeatedly he says regarding the OT, “You have heard it said, but I say to you . . .” (See 5:22, 28, 32)

In the baptismal formula he gave at the Great Commission, he claimed equality with the Father and Spirit: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt. 28:18-20)

He claimed to be able to forgive sins, which only God could do: “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’ 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 ‘Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’” (Mark 2:5-7)

Perhaps the clearest passage is John 10:30-33: Jesus claimed to be one with the Father. “I and the Father are one.” 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Objections to Jesus Being God

Objection: Some will object that Jesus can’t be God. God, they say, is infinite and unlimited; however, Jesus claimed to be limited in various ways. For example, in Matthew 24:36 Jesus said, referring to his second coming, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

Response: We have to understand that Jesus did in fact claim (and prove) to be God. The traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus had two natures even though he was just one person. One nature was his divine nature that he shares with the Father and Spirit. The other is his human nature. Sometimes he refers to his divine nature, such as having glory with God, being the first and the last, etc. However, sometimes he refers to his human nature. When we ask questions about his ability to do something or know something we have to be clear as to whether we are talking about his divine or human nature. In this verse, Jesus is referring to his limited human nature. This does not deny his divine nature.

Objection: Jesus also said “The Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)

Response: The same basic answer is used here. The Father is greater in office while not being greater in nature, that is, in Jesus’ divine nature. Of course, the Father is greater than Jesus’ human nature. An illustration may make this clearer. The President of the United States is greater than me. However, he is only greater in office. We are both of the same nature.

Objection: in Matthew 19:17 we read: “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.’” In other words, only God is good, so why are you calling me good?

Response: Notice there is no explicit denial of his deity. He is likely saying, “Do you realize that in calling me good you are calling me God?” However, even if this is not what he is saying, there is no explicit denial of being God, and we have already seen several (select) examples of him claiming to be God.

Conclusion

Above are a few of the many passages where Jesus claims to be equal with God in various ways. The notion that he didn’t claim to be God is simply false. He was also understood to be God by his followers and the Church. Objections to this idea fail when properly examined. Jesus, in fact, claimed to be God.

*I am indebted as a student of Dr. Norman L. Geisler for the above connections and general thought. See for example his Christian Apologetics.

 

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

/by
Did Jesus Exist

Did Jesus Exist?

,

By Evan Minton

I don’t know why, but 99% of the atheists I talk to on the internet hold the ludicrous position that Jesus never existed. Now, they’re atheists. I expect them not to believe in the divinity of Jesus. How could they? If they did, they wouldn’t be atheists. They’d be Christians. No. I’m not here talking about belief in the divinity of Jesus; I’m talking about belief in Jesus as a historical individual. This is what I find so ridiculous. Those who deny the Christ Myth are holding on to a historical hypothesis that would get them laughed out of every university in the world. Hardly any scholar of ancient history holds this view, and those minority of a minority of a minority who do are rightly viewed as quacks. By the way, those who believe Jesus was a flesh and blood figure of history aren’t just Christians. Atheist and agnostic scholars also believe Jesus was a historical figure. Bart Ehrman, an agnostic and one of Christianity’s most outspoken critics, believes that Jesus was a historical flesh and blood person. He writes “I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it’s silly to talk about him not existing. I don’t know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.” 

Why is this the case? Why does nearly every scholar of ancient history believe that Jesus was flesh and blood figure of history? Is the evidence for Jesus’ historicity as overwhelming as the agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman says it is? Let’s take a look.

*Jesus’ Existence Is Multiply, Multiply, Multiply Attested in Secular Sources, Extra-Biblical Christian sources, and in the New Testament documents.

Jesus is mentioned in many, many sources from both the first and early second centuries. Because of this, it becomes absurd to assert that He never existed. What are those sources? Well, we have the gospels and the New Testament epistles. But everyone already knows about them so I won’t cite those. Instead, I’ll merely cite the extra-biblical non-Christian sources.

1: Flavius Josephus

Josephus mentions Jesus (and several other New Testament figures) in his writings. In “Antiquities Of The Jews” by Flavius Josephus (written in the year AD 90), Josephus writes

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receiving the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was called the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct to this day.”

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

“But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

Here we have an early secular source that mentions Jesus and a band of followers who clearly thought that He was the promised Messiah (or Christ) of their Jewish religion. It mentions Pontius Pilate and says that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate at the suggestion of the Jewish Sanhedrin. This is a pretty good piece of non-Christian, non-biblical evidence affirming the existence of Jesus, the existence of Pontius Pilate, that Jesus had a band of followers who considered Him the Christ, and that the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate and had Him condemned to die on a cross. Josephus also states that Jesus had a brother named James and was killed by the Sanhedrin.

“BUT!” The Christ Mythicist will protest. This passage has obviously been interpolated by a Christian. Josephus was Jewish, not a Christian. And yet, he says things like “He was the Christ” and “he appeared to them alive again the third day;” So, therefore, we can’t include this passage of Josephus because it wasn’t a genuine passage written by him. It was likely written by a Christian scribe who included this passage in order to subliminally evangelize to people. But are the skeptics right? Is this passage really not good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? There are a few things to consider.

First, very few scholars believe that the entire passage was made up by a Christian. Certainly, it’s indisputable that there have been interpolations in this passage, but that doesn’t mean that the whole thing was made up. Most scholars believe that there was an original passage about Jesus included in the testimonium flavianum but that it was slightly modified by a Christian scribe.

There are very good reasons why scholars have adopted the “Partial Authenticity” theory.

1: A good bit of the text is written Josephus’ typical grammatical style and vocabulary. That is to say; the parts believed to be original to Josephus reflect his typical style of writing.

Christopher Price wrote “Perhaps the most important factor leading most scholars to accept the partial-authenticity position is that a substantial part of the TF reflects Josephan language and style. Moreover, when the obvious Christian glosses — which are rich in New Testament terms and language not found in the core — are removed or restored to their original the remaining core passage is coherent and flows well. We can be confident that there was a minimal reference to Jesus… because once the clearly Christian sections are removed, the rest makes good grammatical and historical sense. The peculiarly Christian words are parenthetically connected to the narrative; hence they are grammatically free and could easily have been inserted by a Christian. These sections also are disruptive, and when they are removed the flow of thought is improved and smoother.”

Graham Stanton states “Once the obviously Christian additions are removed, the remaining comments are consistent with Josephus’s vocabulary and style.” (Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, page 143).  The most recent and comprehensive study of the testimonium flavianum was done by John P. Meier in A Marginal Jew, Volume 1. As stated by Meier, “many keywords and phrases in the Testimonium are either absent from the NT or are used therein an entirely different sense; in contrast, almost every word in the core of the Testimonium is found elsewhere in Josephus–in fact, most of the vocabulary turns out to be characteristic of Josephus.” (Meier, op. cit., page 63).

  1. The Reference to James the Brother of Jesus Suggests an Earlier Reference to Jesus

The validity of Josephus’ reference to James’ Martyrdom increases the likelihood that the TF is also valid. In Josephus’ reference to James, he refers to Jesus as “the so-called Christ” without further explanation. That’s all he says. All he says about James is that he’s the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ.” Josephus does not go into any further explanation of who Jesus is, what He did, no claims of Him dying and rising from the dead, no mention of any miracles, or anything like that. All he says is that James is Jesus’ brother. The way the James passage reads, it seems like Josephus was presupposing that his readers already knew who he was talking about. This would make sense if the Testimonium Flavianum was a legitimate passage. Because in that passage, Josephus already briefly explained who this Jesus was and what He did, so that by the time his readers come across the James passage, no further explanation is needed. However, Josephus’ lack of elaboration on who Jesus is in the James passage would make no sense at all if there were not a prior explanation of who he was like we have in the testimonium flavianum. By the way, no one doubts that Josephus’ reference to James is authentic.

For these two reasons and several others, most scholars believe Josephus’ testimonium flavianum is a genuine passage, even though it’s obvious that some Christian scribe changed a few lines here and there. For more information on why the Josephus passage has only been partially interpolated rather than completely invented, click on the URL below.

“Did Josephus Refer To Jesus?” by Christopher Price — http://bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

The Mona Lisa

This issue came up in a talk by Dr. Timothy MgGrew. The lecture was about the extra-biblical evidence that indicated the historical reliability of the New Testament. By the way, you can listen to his talk on Youtube. Anyway, Tim McGrew pulled up a photo of the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa had a mustache, and he compared the interpolations of the Josephus passage about Jesus to the mustached Mona Lisa. He said

“This is not a painting by Leonardo Divinchi and if the lightings not too bright, you may be able to see the reason why. It looks a bit like the Mona Lisa… but… it’s got a mustache and a little goatee beard. Should we conclude that there was no original painting? Or should we conclude that there was and that something has been added to it… by another hand? What should we do with a mustache on the Mona Lisa? Well, fortunately in 1971, Shlomo Pines published some work he had been doing some work on an Arabic manuscript that contains this passage.”

And here in this Arabic text is what we find; it’s the passage without the ham-handed bits that look like Christian interpolations.

“At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die, and those who were his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. THEY REPORTED that he had appeared to them 3 days after his crucifixion. Accordingly, they believed he was the Messiah as the prophets had told wonders” (emphasis mine)

Tim MgGrew then asked his audience “Do you see the difference? My guess is (and this view of the majority of scholars) is that the passage was originally written by Josephus much like we have in this Arabic text… and then some Christian scribe couldn’t resist the impulse to come put a mustache on the Mona Lona. He didn’t realize that he was doing would cause doubt over the authenticity of this report of this genuine passage and that of Josephus himself. Just as with the Mona Lisa, our inference is that there really was an original and it was not done by the person who added the mustache and the beard. Our best bet regarding the testimony is that Josephus really wrote it and that it was interpolated. And fortunately, we’ve discovered a text that shows us which most scholars think is more or less the way it originally was.”

2: Tacitus

Another secular document is called “Annals” by Cornelius Tacitus. From Annals 15.44. Tacitus is reporting on Rome burning to the ground and says that everyone blamed Nero for burning Rome to the ground. Nero tried to pin it on Christians, and he consequently persecuted them. The Annals of Tacitus dates to AD 115.

“But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the Bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements Which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero From the infamy of being believed to have ordered the Conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he Falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were Hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was Put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign Of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time Broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief Originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things Hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their Center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first Made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an Immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of Firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

Again, mention of Jesus and Pontius Pilate in secular documents. Tacitus affirms that Jesus existed and that He was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Then he says that the movement named after Jesus died out for a while, then it flared up again, originally in Judea, then spread to Rome. The New Testament says the same thing; Jesus existed, was crucified by Pilate, his followers stayed quite for 50 days after that, then after Pentecost, they started spreading the gospel across the ancient world. And unlike Josephus’ passage, this passage in Tacitus is NOT disputed by anyone. Everyone recognizes this passage is Tacitus’ Annals as being authentic.

3: Pliny The Younger

Pliny the Younger (62?-c.113) was Governor of Bithynia. His correspondence in 106 AD with the emperor Trajan included a report on proceedings against Christians. In an extended explanation to his supervisor, Pliny explained that he forced Christians to “curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do.” He also described their actions and practices thusly:

“They affirmed, however, that the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft, adultery, never to falsify their word, not to deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up.”

Kyle Butt, an author of many articles on Apologetics Press, had this to say about the Pliny passage I just cited. This is what Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press wrote.

“Pliny used the term ‘Christian’ or ‘Christians’ seven times in his letter, thereby corroborating it as a generally accepted term that was recognized by both the Roman Empire and its emperor. Pliny also used the name “Christ” three times to refer to the originator of the “sect.” It is undeniably the case that Christians, with Christ as their founder, had multiplied in such a way as to draw the attention of the emperor and his magistrates by the time of Pliny’s letter to Trajan. In light of this evidence, it is impossible to deny the fact that Jesus Christ existed and was recognized by the highest officials within the Roman government as an actual, historical person.” – Kyle Butt, Apologetics Press, from the article titled “The Historical Christ–Fact or Fiction?”

4: Celcus

Celsus, a second-century pagan philosopher, produced a vehement attack upon Christianity by the title of True Discourse (in A.D. 178). Celsus argued that Christ owed his existence to the result of fornication between Mary and a Roman soldier named Panthera. As he Jesus got older, Jesus started to run around Palestine making extravagant claims to divinity. Celsus then tells us that due to Jesus’ wild claims about himself, he upset the Jewish authorities so badly that they had him killed. Celsus, though he severely ridiculed the Christian faith, never went so far as to suggest that Jesus did not exist.

5: Mara Bar Serapion

Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian who wrote about Jesus Christ sometime around A.D. 73. He left a legacy manuscript to his son Serapion.

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; He lived on in the teaching which He had given.”

This reference reveals several key things:

1) Jesus was regarded as a wise king.

2) Jesus was murdered.

3) Jesus’ teachings lived on.

Several Christ Mythicists have tried to argue that the “wise king” Mara is referring to isn’t Jesus, but this is really a pathetic argument. For the sake of brevity, I cannot go into the objections to the Mara Bar Serapion passage in any depth, but James Patrick Holding addresses these arguments in the URL below.

http://tektonics.org/jesusexist/serapion.php

In Conclusion

For the sake of brevity, I couldn’t go into all of the secular sources mentioning Jesus. But here’s a list of all the historical sources mentioning Jesus.

Secular  sources — Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny The Younger, Lucian, Phelgon, Celus, Mara Bar Serapion, Suetonius, and Thallus

New Testament sources —   Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Author of Hebrews, James, Peter, and Jude.

Non-Biblical Christian sources —  Clement of Rome, 2 Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Didache, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, Fragments of Papias, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Quadratus, Aristo of Pella, Melito of Sardis, Diognetus, Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, and Epistula Apostolorum.

Heretical Writings — Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, Apocryphon of John, and Treatise on Resurrection.

We have an abundance of historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, the amount of historical evidence is SHOCKING considering how obscure a figure Jesus was. He had, at most, a 3 years public ministry. Yet He’s mentioned in more sources than the Roman emperor! If you count all the non-Christian sources that mention Jesus, Jesus is mentioned in one more source than the Roman emperor Tiberius Caesar! Counting the Christian sources (including the New Testament documents), Jesus beats Caesar 42 to 10! If you consider Jesus a mythological person in light of this historical evidence, you may as well believe the same thing about Tiberius Caesar, since we have more attestation to His existence than for Tiberius Caesar. To claim that Jesus is a myth and Tiberius Caesar was a real person is to be inconsistent.

Now, why is this important? Because when historians are examining history, they use certain tests of authenticity. If a passage in a history book passes one of these “tests,” then the historian concludes that it’s more likely than not that this recorded event is true than it is false. There are many of these tests, but the one I’m using in this blog post is known as “The Principle Of Multiple Attestation.” The principle of multiple attestations says that if an event is mentioned in more than one source, and if the sources don’t rely on each other, then it’s far more likely that that event really occurred. The more records an event is mentioned in, the more and more and more certainty we have that the event recorded in that document is true. Why? Because the more independent sources, you find something in, the less and less likely that ALL of these people would make up the exact same story.

I’m applying the principle of multiple attestations here to the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus is mentioned in so many early, independent sources, that it just becomes irrational to assert that ALL of these people made up the same fictional character…and the proceeded to talk as if he was real.

In addition to that, a few of these sources are hostile sources. They’re not only neutral to the claims of the Christian faith, but they actually ridicule Jesus. These would be sources like Tacitus and Pliny The Younger. This would make their accounts for historically certain due to the principle of enemy attestation.

Objection: But these aren’t contemporary sources. These are later, secondary sources! Show me contemporary sources or else I won’t believe Jesus existed!

Ahh, yes. The old worn out “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus” argument. We actually do have contemporary accounts of Jesus; they’re called the gospels. As mentioned in two other blog posts, we have good reason to believe that the vast majority of the New Testament documents were written prior to A.D 60. But even if it were true that there were no contemporary accounts of Jesus, what would that prove? Would it prove Jesus never existed? Hardly. We don’t really have any contemporary historical evidence for lots of figures in history yet we can know they existed because the historical study can compensate with techniques such as “declarations against interest” and independent corroboration. We have 9 secular sources for Jesus’ existence (the works of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, etc.), that though they aren’t contemporary accounts are still reliable given that they’re not too far removed from the events they report, and as for the gospels which ARE contemporary accounts, they’re rejected a priori because they’re written by people who believed in Jesus and are supposedly biased (even though virtually everyone who writes history has some kind of bias). Moreover, the type of bias the New Testament writers had was a bias not to say anything at all about Jesus and all of the things he did because that ended up getting them excommunicated from their synagogues, tortured and killed.

For one thing, being a non-contemporaneous account does not mean it is not a reliable source. Secondary accounts, though not valued as highly by a historian as firsthand or eyewitness accounts, are not considered worthless. For some historical events and persons, all we have are secondary accounts. Would we, therefore, conclude that they never happened? Of course not. Yet that’s what Christ Mythicists do when it comes to the life and death of Jesus. They reject all secondary accounts (Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny) and they reject the contemporary accounts we DO have (i.e. the gospels). Aren’t they aware of the fact that historians don’t require contemporary accounts for accepted history? (If you think they do, then you’d have to rewrite much of history) They accept both first hand and secondary accounts, among other factors.

Moreover, the thing about Josephus and Tacitus is that even though they weren’t alive during Jesus’ lifetime, they were living within the lifetimes of those who DID know Jesus and could tell them about Him (Jesus, according to virtually all scholars was crucified in either 30 AD or 33 AD and Josephus was born in 37 AD) I have used the analogy of me reporting about Richard Feynman, an American physicist best known for his work in quantum mechanics and who assisted in the development of the atomic bomb. Even though I was born after he died (Feynman died in 1988, I was born in 1992), I’m still close enough to the events to be relevant. After all, I’m growing up in a time where adults who did know Richard Feynman are still around, and they could tell me about him (just pretend for the moment that I don’t have video recordings, Josephus didn’t have these to go on). Are you saying my testimony about Feynman would be invalidated because I wasn’t a contemporary of him, even though I have parents and grandparents and friends of my parents who were contemporaries of Feynman whom I could have gotten my information from? Absurd. My point is, they’re still close enough to the events to be relevant sources, and almost all scholars on the subject accept their testimony as valid evidence for Jesus’ historicity, including scholars who aren’t Christians (so we can be sure they have no theological ax to grind).

Objection: Why Aren’t There More Sources?

Some skeptics complain that there aren’t more historical sources mentioning Jesus. They argue; if Jesus was such an influential individual as the gospels make him out to be, there ought to be far more historical documents that mention Him than what we do have. Of the secular sources, we only have 9 that mention Jesus. From that, they argue that he either didn’t exist or wasn’t as influential as The Bible says.

For one thing, very few documents from ancient history have survived up to the present time. As Ryan Turner, author for CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) wrote in an article on Carm.org: “There are a number of ancient writings that have been lost, including 50% of the Roman historian Tacitus’ works, all of the writings of Thallus and Asclepiades of Mendes.  In fact, Herod the Great’s secretary named Nicolas of Damascus wrote a Universal History of Roman history which comprised nearly 144 books, and none of them have survived. Based on the textual evidence, there is no reason to doubt the existence of Jesus of Nazareth.”

The fact of the matter is; there may have been more secular documents that spoke about Jesus for all we know. But they most likely decayed away, had been destroyed, or they haven’t been discovered yet by archeologists. If documents aren’t copied over and over again at a quick enough pace, they aren’t likely to survive for 2,000 years. Moreover, the evidence we have for Jesus is still pretty strong. His existence is multiply, multiply, multiply, multiply, multiply attested in 9 secular sources, 9 biblical sources, 20 non-biblical Christian sources, and 4 heretical sources.

Now, historians consider themselves extraordinarily lucky when they find 2 independent sources mentioning something, but with the existence of Jesus, we’ve got 42! Some of which are contemporary sources, others, secondary. We have to ask ourselves; is it really rational to believe that such an individual is a fictional character when so many historians wrote about him? The existence and crucifixion of Jesus are mentioned in numerous, independent and early sources. There may have been more for all we know, but they just eroded away due to the fact that that happens to documents which endure through thousands of years.

Objection: Jesus Is Just A Copy Of Pagan Myths

Another argument put forth by the Christ Mythers is that Jesus was just a copy of pagan gods. They’ll cite “similarities” between the two and claim that Christianity is just a plagiarized religion from these earlier pagan myths. Supposedly we’re supposed to believe that Jesus was just a myth and not a real, historical, flesh and blood individual. I’ve already written two different blog posts pointing out the absurdity of this argument, so I will not go into any of it here. Instead, I’ll just redirect you to those blog posts, and you can check them out whenever you have the time.

1: Is Jesus A Copy Of Pagan Myths?

2: Cartoons and Comics That Plagiarized Christianity (Satire)

In Conclusion: The Christ Myth is absurd. Jesus obviously existed as well as several other New Testament figures. You can believe that Jesus was just an ordinary man if you want to, but to claim He didn’t even exist is just ridiculous. The debate among scholars of ancient is history IS NOT “Did Jesus exist?” No. The debate is: “Was Jesus more than a man? Did He say what the gospels say He said? Did He rise from the dead?” These are questions that are debated among scholars. But Jesus’ historical existence is just taken for granted. And why shouldn’t it be? You’ve seen the evidence.

If you want to go into this topic in far more depth than I’ve covered here, check out James Patrick Holding’s book “Shattering The Christ Myth” as well as Bart Ehrman’s book titled “Did Jesus Exist?”.

 

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference To The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine”. He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wDczb2

/by
El debate como un deber cristiano

El debate como un deber cristiano

By Douglas Wilson

For many Christians, it seems a reasonable question to ask whether it is at all profitable for us to participate in public debates. Who has ever changed their mind because of some public debate? Why argue about anything? Logomachies only cause headaches.

In contrast to this, I want to argue that such a quietist position is not only incompatible with the teaching of Scripture, but runs directly counter to it. We are called to speak to unbelievers in the public square, and we must do so in a way that includes responding to their objections. We are called to prevail in debates of this kind (in a particular way). When we do this well, what happens is public debate, the kind of debate that can be very helpful.

But before we make the case for this, it must first be said that those who want to avoid “shows unseemly for Jesus” have a point in their favor. There are some debates that serve no purpose, and the Bible expressly tells us to avoid them. But when Scripture tells us not to lose our battles in a particular way, we must not infer from this an imaginary duty not to fight those battles at all.

That said, I would like to begin by pointing out a few places where Christians are told not to engage in verbal bickering. While we are not to avoid all debates, we do need to avoid some debates.

“Speak evil of no one, not quarrelsome, but gentle, showing all gentleness to all men. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving various lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.” (Titus 3:2-3)

We must not be “troublemakers.”

“But put away foolish and senseless controversies, knowing that they breed strife. For the Lord’s servant must not be contentious but kind to all, apt to teach, patient, in gentleness correcting those who oppose themselves, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth and that they may escape from the snare of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.” (2 Timothy 2:23-26)

We are told to stay out of stupid, fruitless debates, where the issue being discussed is guaranteed to spiral downward into meaningless shouting. The servant of the Lord is not to be contentious. But even in this case, note that the servant of the Lord is to “instruct those who oppose.” In other words, Paul’s rule here is “not this kind of debate,” and not, “do not debate.”

We must assess the situation, and read the crowd. There are times when we must not stoop to their level (Prov. 26:4). But, since wisdom is not optional, there are times when we must step into their world in order to execute the reductio (Prov. 26:5).

So with these caveats in mind, why should we debate? Well, to start where every Christian should always start, let’s look at the life of Jesus. Asking whether it is legitimate to debate is like asking whether it is permissible to speak in parables. Jesus spoke in parables constantly, and he also engaged in constant public pointing and objecting.

Jesus deftly answered a question about his authority with a question about John the Baptist (Matt. 21:27). Jesus silenced the Sadducees in a debate about the resurrection (Matt. 22:29). Jesus debated the highly charged issue of taxes (Mark 12:17). Jesus debated the devil (Luke 4:4). Jesus debated the issue of Sabbath healing (Luke 5:22). And Jesus takes on his opponents on the issue of his own identity (John 8:14). There are many other examples. In fact, there are so many examples of polemical exchanges in the gospels that questions about the appropriateness of polemical exchanges can only arise if people are ignorant of the gospels, or if they come to the gospels with a strong, preconceived idea about Jesus that they learned elsewhere.

This is strange, but not surprising, because there is a strong non-biblical tradition that labels Jesus as the original hippie, teaching us all to make peace. This goes directly against all the teachings the Lord made about hellfire, and he won the numerous debates with established theologians, and, as Sayers or Chesterton once said, we must not forget the time he threw the furniture down the temple steps. A gentle, meek, humble Jesus, no.

That said, it is not surprising that we find instructions that reveal how public shock is actually a pastoral duty.

“Hold fast the faithful word as taught, that ye may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince those that contradict. For there are many unruly, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially they of the circumcision; whose mouths must be stopped.” ( Titus 1:9-11 ).

This not only requires pastors to debate false teachers, it requires them to win those debates.

“And when he was minded to pass into Achaia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. And when he came there, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he vehemently refuted the Jews publicly, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.” (Acts 18:27-28)

Putting this all together, we see the biblical reasons for debate. We see them both in the example of Jesus, and in the instructions given to pastors in the first century. The point of debating is to silence the stubborn, talkative, and overthinking. When this happens, it is sometimes not obvious to the false teacher that he has been silenced – even though it is obvious to everyone else. This is the valuable service that Apollos offered – he was a help to believers in the way he refuted the Jews’ question of whether Jesus was the Messiah. Translated into a modern setting, if a believer effectively refuted someone arguing for gay marriage, or an atheist denying God, the debate on stage might not be resolved at all. However, there are many believers in the audience who have heard those same arguments in numerous classrooms, and we now know that these arguments can be effectively countered. Apollos was a great help to believers.

In godly debate, you are trying to win men and not arguments, and you have to remember that many of those who are trying to win are in the audience. In the great public issues of the day, there are a great many people on the fence. Debates can have an enormous impact on “the swing segment.” I would like to say that when we observe how ineffective our debates are, we would do much better to heed the scriptures and lament how ineffective our debaters are. This is an activity that should be encouraged, honored, and praised, and we should provide the necessary training for those who are called to it. And training programs should reject those bellicose types who only want to join a “who you gonna call?” Cultbusters .

In conclusion, I would like to say a few things about one of the great arenas for demonstrating excellent debating skills, and that would be the classrooms of secular universities. To what extent should Christians just keep their heads down? And if they do speak up, how should they speak up?

I would suggest three things to students in that position. The first is that if you want to challenge a teacher, you should do so with an established ethic. By this, I mean don’t be a struggling student who only does half the reading, then walks up to the teacher with the safety on, and then when you’re shut down, runs away crying. Earn your right to speak, and do so by being at the top of the class – or at the top of the class before you decide to open your mouth. If your grades slip after that, that’s up to the teacher.

Second, let most of your opportunities come to you. If you challenge everything you could possibly challenge (depending on the class) you’re going to do it every ten minutes. If you’re in a target-rich environment, then you’re likely to attack one every 25. You’ll sufficiently and effectively prove your point, and in this scenario – trust me – a little goes a long way.

And finally, as a student, you are not a professor. That means you should not preach, or try to hijack the lecture. There is a place for gospel declaration, but this is not it. That being said, it is not out of place for a student to ask questions. That is not inappropriate – that is a student’s calling and vocation. And if you ask the right questions for which the professor does not have answers, then you do not have to jump to conclusions. You can do that in conversations with other students after class. Keep discussions (in this context) in the interrogative.

If you learn to do this well, it may be an indication that you are called to an apologetic ministry after graduation. If this happens, you will have more tools available than as a humble student.

 

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2Pdmj3b

Translated by Jairo Izquierdo Hernandez

/by
Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna_

Was Jesus’ Death and Resurrection Copied from Krishna?

,

By Mikel Del Rosario

Copied From Krishna?

What would you say if someone told you the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ death and resurrection were copied from earlier pagan stories? Over 100 years ago, a guy named Kersey Graves talked about Jesus and Krishna. He said Jesus wasn’t unique among religious figures. Fans of his work were convinced the Hindu figure Krishna wasn’t just a dying and rising god but a crucified savior, too.

Maybe you haven’t heard this exact challenge about Jesus and Krishna before. But the idea that Jesus’ story was ripped off older pagan myths comes up over and over again in conversations about world religious literature.

I teach a World Religion course at William Jessup University and recently got a chance to collaborate on this topic with my friend Daniel Lee, who is currently studying Christian Apologetics under another friend from my Biola days, Dr. Sean McDowell.

In this post, we’ll show you how comparing the story of Krishna with the biblical accounts of Jesus show that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Hinduism. First, we’ll compare the story of Jesus’ death to the story of Krishna’s death. Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna? Then, we’ll compare the idea of resurrection in each of these stories. Was Krishna really a crucified Savior?

Was Jesus’ death copied from Krishna?

Let’s compare Jesus and Krishna. In The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors, Graves wrote that Krishna was crucified between two thieves (p. 140). But no Hindu text says Krishna was crucified at all! Still, some wonder if there’s a parallel between the way Jesus and Krishna died. They’ve heard that long before Jesus’ death, there was an old Indian myth about the Hindu god Krishna being pierced and resurrected. Really?

It does sound curious when you put it that way. After all, Christians link Isaiah 53:5 to Jesus’ death by crucifixion: “But he was pierced for our transgressions…with his wounds we are healed” (Compare this with 1 Peter 2:24). But here’s the thing: All things can seem similar if you ignore the differences!

Read for yourself what the Indian epic-poem called the Mahabharata (Book 16: Mausala Parva) says about Krishna. He wasn’t crucified. Instead, he got shot in a hunting accident!

“The hunter, mistaking [Krishna]…for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to that spot for capturing his prey. Coming up, Jara [the hunter] beheld a man dressed in yellow robes, rapt in Yoga and endued with many arms. Regarding himself an offender, and filled with fear, he touched the feet of [Krishna, who] comforted him and then ascended upwards…When he reached Heaven [he] met the deities…”

Yes, Krishna was pierced. But he was pierced by an arrow when he got shot in the foot! Krishna wasn’t crucified. And he certainly wasn’t crucified between two thieves!

So was Jesus’ death by crucifixion copied from Krishna? Nope. Turns out, there’s no crucifixion in the Krishna story at all. We just don’t see a meaningful parallel between Jesus and Krishna in this regard. What about Graves’ idea that Krishna was a resurrected savior?

Was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna?

We could be wrong about this, but it’s not clear that Krishna actually died when Jara shot him in the foot. If he didn’t really die, he couldn’t have been raised from the dead. But let’s give Graves the benefit of the doubt and say Krishna died when he got shot in the foot and somehow came back to life right after getting shot.

There’s still no meaningful parallel with Jesus’ resurrection. According to the earliest Christian sources, Jesus was buried and his tomb was discovered empty by his women followers three days later. Over a period of 40 days, he convinced individuals and groups that God raised him from the dead before ascending to heaven. This is totally different from the Krishna story.

But more importantly, Christians link Jesus’ death and resurrection with the possibility of forgiveness of sin and eternal life. In contrast, no Hindu text links the Krishna scene to the possibility of human beings attaining forgiveness of sins or attaining eternal life. In what sense, then, was Krishna a savior?

So was Jesus’ resurrection copied from Krishna? No. It’s not clear that Krishna was resurrected in the myth and no Hindus link Krishna’s hunting accident with forgiveness of sins or eternal life.

Jesus and Krishna: No Meaningful Parallel

People who want to force a parallel say Jesus and Krishna were both pieced and raised from the dead. But again, almost anything can seem similar if you ignore the differences! The key point of the Gospel story is that God used Jesus’ resurrection to validate his divine claims. Further, the New Testament links Jesus’ death and resurrection to believers receiving forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Indeed, the Christian significance of this event has no meaningful parallel with the Hindu story of Krishna. As my friend Daniel concludes:

“These stories and implications are about as similar as an ant and an elephant.”

Interestingly, the earliest critics of Christianity never said Jesus’ story was ripped off from Hinduism. Right from the get-go, the Apostle Paul acknowledged that Gentiles found the idea of a crucified savior tough to accept (1 Corinthians 1:23), not like it was a common theme in pagan mythology. Even in the second century, the Greek Apologist Justin Martyr made a similar observation in Apology I: Skeptics said the idea of a crucified savior was absolutely crazy (13.4)!

Jesus’ Story Wasn’t Copied from Krishna

Bottom line: Was Krishna crucified? Nope. Not in any Hindu story anywhere. Was Krishna resurrected? Maybe. But despite what Graves insists, Krishna was not a pre-Christian example of a crucified savior. There’s no salvation, forgiveness of sins (or escape from karma for that matter) or hope of eternal life linked to it. Just comparing the stories of Jesus and Krishna shows Graves is wrong on this one. You can be confident that Jesus’ death and resurrection wasn’t copied from Krishna.

 

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

/by
Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

By Brian Chilton

On this episode of the Bellator Christi Podcast, Brian Chilton discusses what needs to be in a person’s message as one shares the gospel to those who know very little about God, Jesus, or the Bible. Join us today as we delve into Paul’s message to the Athenians delivered at the Areopagus in Athens, Greece from Acts 17:22-34.

Securing a Seat in a Secular Society

Acts 17:22-34

  1. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of their CONNECTION (17:22-23).
  2. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of the CREATOR (17:24-29).
    1. The Creator’s ATTRIBUTES (17:24-26, 28).
    2. The Creator’s ACCEPTANCE (17:27, 29).
  3. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of the CONDITIONS (17:30).
    1. Condition of SIN.
    2. Condition of SALVATION.
  4. Paul’s secured message included a discussion of COGNITION (17:31-34).

Hear:

 

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 in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves in northwestern North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2Od72jj

/by
Truth and Tone in Cultural Engagement

Truth and Tone in Cultural Engagement

,

By Darrell L. Bock and Mikel Del Rosario

INTRODUCTION

Over the past few decades, some evangelicals have seen cultural engagement as fighting a culture war for Christ. But the landscape has changed in a way that most people who graduated from seminary forty years ago might never have imagined. Today, we as Christians find ourselves in the position of a cultural minority in the United States. How should we engage with a society that is increasingly hostile to the Christian faith?

This Table briefing explores what the New Testament teaches about honoring God through our message—and our tone—as we minister in a world that often pushes back against the gospel. This ethos of balancing invitation and challenge has been a key emphasis since the beginning of the Table Podcasts.

First, we consider how the example of the early church should inform our cultural engagement as a church today. Then we examine how the Apostle Paul’s example should inform our interpersonal interactions with unbelieving friends and neighbors. [Download the full-length article]

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2tvEkl5

/by
No Real Jesus Without The Trinity

Sin la Trinidad no hay un verdadero Jesús

By Marcia Montenegro

The Trinity can be considered a rather neglected doctrine in the church today, even seen as secondary by many. In this article, we will consider and evaluate some responses from Christians and non-Christians who oppose the importance and necessity of the doctrine of the Trinity.

Nontrinitarians appear to be Christians, especially in their declaration of love for Jesus, but if the subject of the Trinity comes up, they regard it as an unproblematic, pagan, evil, man-made, unbiblical doctrine, etc. All nontrinitarians deny the personality of the Holy Spirit.

The main question is: if the Trinity is not true, then who is Jesus?

There are numerous Christian scholars who have written books on this topic, with answers to both Trinity and anti-Trinitarian views. I have added a list of resources at the end for those who want to read further.

Objections to the Trinity and their responses

Objection: “Well, no one really understands the Trinity, so if people don’t accept it, that’s fine.”

It is true that no one understands the Trinity in its entirety because we are dealing with the nature of God. Since God is not created, we as created beings cannot grasp the full nature of God. However, He has revealed all of His attributes in His Word, and so we can know many things about God.

Since God is uncreated, the Trinity has no counterpart on Earth. That is why there is no analogy for it. Most analogies describe modalism (God takes on the roles of three persons), tritheism (three persons instead of one), and when examined, they break down. I do not use an analogy. I say that God is three coeternal, coequal persons who are one substance. “Persons,” by the way, does not mean a human person, but it is the proper way to describe the three in the Trinity.

Other ways to describe the Trinity are:

  • There is only one God.
  • God exists eternally in three distinct persons.
  • The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
  • The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, etc. [1]

Objection: “After they believe in Jesus, that’s all that matters.”

But who is the Jesus they are believing in?

Concerning the Trinity, there are two main heresies:

  • Oneness or Modalism (sometimes called Sabellianism, named after the 3rd century heretic Sabellius), teaches that God is one person (a unitary view of God) who manifests as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and/or one God who has 3 roles or “functions”, such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
  • Arianism (named after Arius, a 3rd/4th century heretic), teaches that Jesus is a created being and is less than God.

The Modalist view includes:

  • Jesus is God the Father.
  • Jesus is God incarnate.
  • The Holy Spirit is part of God/Jesus.
  • The Father is the “divine nature,” and Jesus is the “human nature” of God.

In contrast, the Bible unequivocally says:

  • Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father; Jesus cannot be the Son of God if God the Father is also.
  • Jesus spoke of his Father in several passages.
  • Jesus prayed to the Father.
  • Throughout the Gospel of Saint John, Jesus speaks of how God sent him (Jesus) to Earth.
  • The Holy Spirit is given the same attributes of deity as God [2] .

Trinity

Illustration of the Trinity

The Holy Spirit is given personal characteristics and is referred to as a Person, and not as a mere force, power or energy [3] .

Some Oneness believers say that when Jesus prayed to God, it was human nature praying to divine nature. But natures don’t pray, individuals pray. Furthermore, it would be deceptive for God to make it appear that Jesus was praying to someone else when, in fact, he wasn’t.

The Jesus of the non-Trinity Arians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Wayfarers, and other sects is a created Jesus. He has a beginning and is not equal to the Father. This is clearly a false Jesus, and is easier to refute than the Jesus of Modalism/Oneness, which is arguably more complicated and difficult to refute.

heresies-chart

Arius (250-336) taught that Jesus was a created, finite being, and was declared a heretic by the Council of Nicaea in 325. So the real Jesus is not the Jesus of Modalism/Oneness or the Arian Jesus, and therefore belief in such a Jesus is fruitless.

Objection: “We are not saved by perfect doctrine.”

We are not saved by doctrine, but by faith, but such faith must be an informed faith. If our doctrine as to who Jesus or God is is incorrect, then we do not have faith in the right Jesus. We can get little things wrong, but not about who Jesus is, because we will have the wrong Jesus, making him unable to save.

Doctrine simply means “teachings.” The teachings of who God and Jesus are have to be true and based on God’s revelation in Scripture. Otherwise, it’s a false God and Jesus. It’s really basic. This objection is a “straw man.”

Just because the word “Jesus” is used by Oneness believers or Arians, it does not mean that it is the correct Jesus. Pay attention to statements of faith, because statements by Oneness believers can be quite misleading. They may say they believe in the “Triune God” without referring to the biblical Trinity.

Modalists can affirm the Apostles’ Creed without believing in the Trinity. They read their own meaning into who Jesus is. An example of this statement is found on the church’s website “Dan Dean’s Oneness” (Phillips, Craig & Dean). They give the Apostles’ Creed as their beliefs. There is no affirmation of the Trinity and no clarification as to the person of the Holy Spirit (because they are a Oneness Church [4] ).

Who is Jesus if the Trinity is not true?

If there is no Trinity, where does that leave Jesus? Here are the options:

  • He is a minor God.
  • It’s another God.
  • He is not the Son of God, but the Father.
  • He is just a man without divinity.

These points clearly answer the question, “If the Trinity is not true, then who is Jesus?” It leaves Jesus as a false Jesus. This should establish why the Trinity is essential to the faith and cannot be denied by anyone who calls himself a Christian. It is good to point this out to those who say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential or primary.

Recognized antitrinitarians

There are many well-known people who were or are antitrinitarians, dead and alive:

  • William Branham (Modalism), a highly influential figure in the erroneous and sectarian movements in the Church today; there are Branham teachings and followers all over the world [5] [6] .
  • Jakes (Modalism) [7] [8] .
  • Phillip, Craig & Dean (Modalism) [9] [10] [11] .
  • Roy Masters (Arian) [12] [13] .
  • Ron Dart (similar to Arianism), still heard on Christian radio [14] [15] .
  • The Armstrong cults (Worldwide Church of God), polytheistic (the Father and Jesus are separate gods) [16] [17] [18] [19] .
  • The Way (formerly called “The Way International”), Arians [20] [21] .

Some verses about the Trinity (there are many more)

“And Jesus, after he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, behold, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. And a voice from heaven said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17).

“Therefore, being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured out this which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

“how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38).

“But the Helper, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I have said to you” (John 14:26).

“But when the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me” (John 15:26).

“How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14).

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen” (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Additional Resources on the Trinity

(Selected list, not exhaustive)

  • Arianism [22]
  • Modalism [23]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism [24]
  • What is Sabellianism, Modalism and Monarchism? [25]
  • The Athanasian Creed confessing the Trinity [26]
  • CANA Post, Modalism is an Attack on God [27]
  • Why the Trinity is an Essential Doctrine [28]
  • Jesus Christ Our Creator, a Biblical Defense of the Trinity [29]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism of NAMB (North American Mission Board of the SBC) [30]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity [31]
  • The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity [32]
  • Faith groups that reject the Trinity [33]

Books about the Trinity

  • “A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism” by Edward Dalcour.
  • “Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity” by Gregory Boyd.
  • “Jesus Only Churches” by E. Calvin Beisner.
  • “Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses” by Robert Bowman.

References

[1] Theopedia, https://www.theopedia.com/trinity

[2] The Trinity, CARM

[3] See numbers 3 and 4 at https://carm.org/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

[4] http://theheartlandchurch.com/beliefs/

[5] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/branhamismprofile.pdf

[6] http://www.apologeticsindex.org/5870-william-branham

[7] http://www.equip.org/article/concerns-about-the-teachings-of-td-jakes/

[8] CANA article on TD Jakes’ misleading language on the Trinity http://www.solasisters.com/2012/01/td-jakes-through-glass-blurrily.html

[9] http://hereiblog.com/modalism-revisted-phillips-craig-dean/

[10] https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2013/01/05/blurring-the-dividing-linethe-legacy-of-phillipscraig-and-dean/

[11] https://rootedinchrist.org/2008/01/01/phillips-craig-dean-and-the-united-pentecostal-church-upci-oneness-pentecostals/

[12] Walter Martin exposes Masters’ heretical beliefs in a debate with Masters https://soundcloud.com/steven-j-aronfeld/roy-masters-debates-walter

[13] CANA post in Masters, https://www.facebook.com/FormerNewAger/posts/10153497822822237

[14] http://www.soundwitness.org/evangel/ronald_dart_anti-trinitarian.htm

[15] http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2015/07/heresy-alert.html

[16] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/armstrongismprofile.pdf

[17] https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

[18] https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

[19] https://www.watchman.org/articles/cults-alternative-religions/history-of-armstrongism/

[20] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/wayprofile.pdf

[21] https://carm.org/way-international

[22] Theopedia goo.gl/HjnvyY

[23] Theopedia goo.gl/ATjpBY

[24] goo.gl/SwZtUU

[25] Got Questions (4 articles) goo.gl/dsANZ6

[26] goo.gl/5m5Axy

[27] goo.gl/GtFbKZ

[28] J. Warner Wallace, http://bit.ly/1L8KRAT

[29] Jonathan Safarti, goo.gl/jXebGb

[30] goo.gl/ug2AQL

[31] Robert Bowman, Jr. goo.gl/5QWmtn

[32] Robert Bowman, Jr., goo.gl/ehfzUU

[33] goo.gl/nRECCC

 

Original Blog: http://bit.ly/2rJ1frd

Translated by JanLouis Rivera.

Edited by Maria Andreina Cerrada.

/by