Jesus Archives - Page 5 of 17

Tag Archive for: Jesus

I’m Having Doubts. Is that Okay?

Apologetics for Parents, Theology and Christian Apologetics

Is doubting sinful?

If you have ever asked this question, you’re not alone. It’s an important question because doubt is part of the human experience. Therefore, Christians should ponder the question and seek to find out if God condones his people to have doubts.

If so, to what extent? What are the boundaries if doubt in itself is not sinful? What should God’s people do with their doubts?

Before we get too far, let’s define some terms:[1]

Doubt: 1) verb. To be undecided or uncertain. 2) noun. A feeling of uncertainty about the truth, reality, or nature of something.
Unbelief: noun. The state or quality of not believing; skepticism, especially in matters of religion.
Faith (or belief): noun. 1) confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2) belief about someone or something with good reason. 3) belief that is not based on proof.

For most Christians, it is clear that the Church does not have a positive attitude toward doubt. Many Christians have left the faith altogether from festering doubts which were never addressed because they felt there was no safe space in the Church to make their concerns known.[2]

Indeed, in recent years, the Church has, by and large, neglected to seriously consider the question of whether doubt (or asking questions) is sinful.

The result has been damaging: Those who have doubts and questions don’t trust the Church enough to be honest and open. If there is one place in the world Christians should feel safe exposing their doubt, it’s with the Church. Rather, they go outside the Church to ask their questions, where they are welcomed with the open arms of a tolerant, inclusive, and diverse world.

Maybe this is your story. Maybe you have doubts in the back of your mind, but you feel like addressing them will make you a bad Christian or make God mad at you. Maybe you know people whose doubt led to deconversion.

That would understandably cause fear in anyone. Please hear that you are not alone. There is hope in Jesus, and you will see how addressing your doubt is actually what will keep your faith strong in the long run.

With some exceptions, the Church has sidestepped the question of doubt by labeling all doubt as sinful, setting doubt in direct opposition with faith. Hence, the common mantras such as “just have faith” and “don’t ask questions” are believed without any reservation as biblical truth.

Taking a step back and examining the question of doubt is valuable because it forces us to ask ourselves if our theology is accurately reflecting the true teachings of Scripture. Examining our beliefs, which we often put little to no thought toward, is critical if we want to grow in our knowledge, understanding, and love of God and others.

The Source of Doubt

When having doubts about faith, we first have to ask, “Where did this doubt come from?” Identifying the source of doubt will help you determine how to deal with it. All doubt is spiritual, but there are two “categories” of doubt: emotional doubt and intellectual doubt.

Emotional Doubt

In short, emotional doubt is caused by an emotional impact on your life. For example, when people experience the deep loss of a loved one, the emotional impact causes them to question God’s love, goodness, or his existence altogether. You may have this doubt yourself, and that’s okay.

A good test to see if doubt is caused by an emotional impact is to ask, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s anger or resentment or grief, it’s probably emotional doubt. When addressing this doubt, you would seek assurance that Christianity is good.

Intellectual Doubt

Intellectual doubt deals with what you do or don’t know about God. In other words, intellectual doubt is focused on facts rather than pure emotion. Intellectual doubt can indeed cause some emotions, but in this case, the source of the doubt is intellectual while the effect of the doubt is emotional.

For this doubt to be addressed (which can also help emotional doubt), you would seek assurance that Christianity is true. Again, ask the question, “What is my primary emotion toward God when I think about this?” If it’s uncertainty or confusion, your doubt is probably intellectual.

Doubt, Faith, and Unbelief

As mentioned in the introduction, doubt is often used as the opposite of faith in the Church. However, this is not the case. The opposite of faith is unbelief. In the New Testament, the words “faith” and “believe” are the same in the original language (Greek). A good example is Romans 4:4:

Now to the one who works, pay is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.

In the English language, “believes” and “faith” are different words, yet in the Greek language, they are the same. “Believes” is the verb form (pisteuō), and “faith” is the verb form (pistis). When we say we have faith in Christ, we are synonymously saying we believe in Christ. (Just as important, when we say we believe in Christ, it’s not merely a cognitive belief or recognition, as if we are saying we believe that, say, air exists. Rather, we are saying that we believe in Jesus and align our lives in accordance with that belief. It changes who we are from the inside out.)

How does it follow that doubt is the opposite of faith? Doubt is uncertainty about something. Unbelief is a conviction that something isn’t true, while faith is a conviction (or assurance) that something is true. In other words, doubt is the middle ground of faith and unbelief.

The Direction of Doubt

It is hard to see how doubt is sinful when one reflects on it long enough. As mentioned in the opening, it’s part of the human experience. People are going to doubt no matter what. The sin is not the doubt. The sin is what you do with the doubt, or where you decided to let the doubt take you.

We have seen how doubt is the middle ground, or tension, of faith and unbelief. This implies there is a decision to be made to go toward one (faith) or the other (unbelief). In our doubt, we can decide to go to many sources and voices that can lead us to unbelief. Conversely, many places are available to go to for answers to our doubts that keep our faith intact.

Ignoring doubts also can lead to unbelief. In the same way, we can choose to go to the object of our faith, Jesus, and see what he has to say about the matter.

Sin comes when our conclusions drive us toward unbelief. When our conclusions cause us to trust Christ and go deeper in our pursuit of God’s truth, our faith is strengthened, and the doubt is answered. In other words, sin enters the picture when uncertainty turns to unbelief, while stronger faith is produced when uncertainty turns to assurance.

Jesus’s Response to Doubt

In the seventh chapter of Luke’s Gospel, he records a story about John the Baptist. John the Baptist is regarded as a great spiritual model in the Church as he “prepared the way” for Jesus to begin his ministry.

Yet, in this story, John the Baptist is recorded as having doubts himself!

What? Not John the Baptist!

In this story, John was in prison for his faith. Things were not turning out as he hoped they would. It’s not a huge stretch to assume John knew he was nearing the end of his life, and understandably, he wanted assurance that Jesus was the Messiah. He wanted to make sure his death would not be in vain, since Jesus was not doing the things that the average Jew thought the Messiah would do at that time in Israel.

John decided to send some of his disciples to ask Jesus, “Are you the one to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Once his disciples asked Jesus the question, Jesus’s response was very telling. It was not, “You go tell John to just have faith and quit asking questions! Doubting is sinful!”

Instead, Jesus’s response was to “go and tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised…”

Jesus did not want them to have blind faith in who he was. The point of his miracles was to point to the fact that he is “the one who is to come.” He provided evidence for the divine claims he made through his miracles. That’s what he pointed to when he was questioned.

Lastly, in verse 28, Jesus said about John, who had just doubted him, that “among those born of women, none is greater than John.” Even after doubting and needing assurance, Jesus commends John the Baptist!

Conclusion

Although doubt is seen as a negative in a large portion of the Church, be encouraged that the Lord’s attitude about doubt is very different. You aren’t a “bad Christian” for doubting. I have a podcast and blog aimed at providing reasons for the hope that we have in Christ, yet I wake up some mornings and question if it is true, or at least if some of my central beliefs about who God is are true.

I’ve learned to take my doubts, questions, and concerns to the feet of Jesus. If I go anywhere else, the answer I receive will likely lead me away from Christ. This does not mean we can’t get helpful insight from other resources (that’s what you’re doing right now!).

Other resources are good, and God can use them for our spiritual growth and understanding. These are resources that reflect the true teachings of Scripture. However, when we do so, our hearts and minds should be in submission the lordship of Christ to direct us and give us discernment when we do go to those resources.

That’s why it is critical to know Scripture for ourselves: to be able to discern what’s true and false in the world. It’s also critical to pray for the Lord’s wisdom and help in seeking answers. This is a practical way to bring your doubts to the Lord.

Be assured, brother and sisters, when you doubt, you are still a child of the Living God. When you take your doubts to him who created you, he will supply you with whatever answer your heart needs. Sometimes we may not like the answers to certain doubts.

However, every day, every Christian must answer the same question: who has ultimate authority in my life? Myself and my desires, or Christ?

In most cases, he knows what we need better than we do. Be encouraged that when you have doubt, you can let it be known, for our Savior invites you to bring them into the light so that he can assure you of all things concerning himself.

Amen.

Reliable resources to start addressing doubt:

CrossExamined.org

Cold Case Christianity

Stand to Reason

Alisa Childers

Sean McDowell

[1] Definitions adapted from dictionary.com.

[2] Ed Jarrett, “Can a Christian Doubt God and Still Have Faith?” https://www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/can-a-christian-doubt-god-and-still-have-faith.html.

4 New Arguments for the Resurrection of Jesus

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Brian G. Chilton

For nearly ten years, I have been honored to bring you reasons for believing in the resurrection of Jesus. I now find myself at the end of a terminal degree in theological and apologetic studies.[1] For some, advanced education tends to cause one to doubt one’s position over time. However, that has not been the case for me and the resurrection of Jesus. Over the last few years, I have found five new compelling reasons for believing that the resurrection of Jesus was a legitimate historical event. These five arguments may or may not be new to the reader, but they became new to me through my research and are newer than some of the previous arguments given about the resurrection in previous articles. Without further ado, consider the following five new arguments for the resurrection of Jesus.

Unexpected Nature of the Resurrection

The first argument is one of the best pieces of evidence for the resurrection that I had never before considered. That is, no one in Jesus’s day expected the Messiah to rise from the dead. In Matthew’s Gospel, the Jewish leaders argue that the disciples stole the body of Jesus (Matt. 28:11–15). Of all the alternate theories of the resurrection, this is by far the most compelling. Regardless of whether one holds that the disciples stole the body of Jesus, invented the story, or feigned Jesus’s death, there is one aspect that skeptics fail to consider. No one in the first century anticipated the imminent resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in Jesus’s encounter with Martha at Lazarus’s tomb. Recall that when Jesus asked Mary if she believed that Lazarus would rise from the dead, she said, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day” (Jn. 11:24). Martha’s response represented the typical position of the Pharisees and the Essenes. Josephus notes that the vast majority of the population in first-century Israel were Pharisees.[2]

N.T. Wright provides two reasons why the resurrection was unexpected in the first century. On the one hand, believers living in the times of Second Temple Judaism anticipated that the resurrection would bring about the “restoration of Israel … [and] the newly embodied life of all YHWH’s people.”[3] On the other hand, no one in the period connected the Messiah with resurrection.[4] The concept of the Messiah resurrecting on the third day, though it may be reflected in the OT texts to a degree, was not in any way expected by believers at this time. Thus, the lack of anticipation for a resurrection delivers a fatal blow to any theory that projects the early Christians as being those who staged such an experience. Why stage something that they did not believe would happen in the first place?

Multiple Independent Sources

When it comes to any event of history, it is important for one to possess multiple source attestation. The more eyes one has on an event, the more accurate the truth can be preserved. When it comes to the resurrection, we have multiple sources pointing to the resurrection of Jesus being a historical event. First, we have the four independent sources found in the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all provide unique accounts of Jesus’s resurrection appearances. Matthew reports Jesus’s post-resurrection meeting with the disciples in Galilee. Mark reports the women at the tomb and their mysterious encounter with the angels at the tomb. Luke provides multiple accounts that are not preserved in the other Gospels, including the two disciples’ encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (Lk. 24:13–35). John affords multiple stories not included in the other Gospels, including Thomas’s encounter with Jesus (Jn. 20:24–29), Jesus’s encounter with the disciples on the Sea of Galilee, Jesus’s reinstatement of Peter (Jn. 21:15–19), and Peter asking Jesus about John’s ministry (Jn. 21:20–23).

In addition to the Gospels, a fifth source is found in the early creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–9. The early creed provides additional information concerning the resurrection appearances of Jesus. It tells of Peter’s meeting with the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5), the meeting between Jesus and James (1 Cor. 15:7), and his appearance to over 500 (1 Cor. 15:6). A sixth source is found in the sermon summaries of Peter in the book of Acts (Acts 2:14–41 and 3:12–26). A seventh source is found in the sermon summary of Stephen (especially in Acts 7:52 and 7:59–60). Finally, an eighth source is found in the sermon summaries of Paul. In the first sermon summary of Paul, he even speaks of Jesus’s empty tomb (Acts 13:29). Max Wilcox has convincingly found numerous Semitisms within the sermon summaries in Acts 1–15 that are largely not found in the remainder of the book.[5] Thus, the sermons of these chapters stem from earlier summaries that predate the composition of the book of Acts. Since a good estimate of the dating of Acts is the mid-60s, then it can be said that these summaries are much earlier. The fact that they speak of the resurrection of Jesus provides one more reason to adopt it as a genuine event of history.

Extremely Early Testimony

The study into the early creeds of the NT is gaining steam. Though he may claim otherwise, NT scholar and self-professed atheist-leaning-agnostic Bart Ehrman wrote that Paul received the creeds (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:3–9) while in Jerusalem in AD 35 or 36.[6] He goes on to say that “the traditions [Paul] inherited, of course, were older than that and so must date to just a couple of years or so after Jesus’s death.”[7] Since the early creeds wholeheartedly affirm Jesus’s literal bodily resurrection, then this provides firm evidence that the earliest disciples believed that Jesus had risen from the dead. Paul’s sermon summary also affirmed the belief that the tomb of Jesus was empty, as noted previously. With many, if not the majority, of the early creeds, we are talking about them circulating just a few months to a few years after Jesus’s crucifixion.[8] The creeds found in the Pauline epistles stemmed from the information Paul obtained from his interaction with the Jerusalem Church a couple of years after his conversion (Gal. 1:18). He spent two weeks with Peter and James learning about the teachings and doctrines of Christ. As C. H. Dodd notes, “we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.”[9] Thus, the proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead came very early from the place where Jesus had been crucified. The details from the early sermon summaries of Acts and the creeds in Paul’s epistles make for a full and compelling case for the early preaching of the resurrection. When pieced with the first argument, it is difficult to find any other explanation outside of the fact that Jesus literally rose from the dead.

Unique Early Eschatological Christology

Finally, it has been observed that the earliest Christology is the highest Christology.[10] Additionally, early Jesus traditions endorse the idea that Jesus spoke of an eschatological figure who would usher in the kingdom of God. This eschatological figure is known as the Son of Man. The Son of Man arguably constructs the Christological core of Q—a theoretical Gospel that precedes the canonical Gospels.[11] Part of this early tradition includes Jesus’s comment that as “Jonah was in the belly of the huge fish three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt. 12:40).[12] The Son of Man figure is almost exclusively found in the teachings of Jesus. Thus, this was a unique teaching of Jesus. Not only does the Son of Man figure connect with Jesus being God’s regent who brings God’s kingdom to earth, but it also speaks of his glorification which relates to his resurrection. Therefore, early Jesus preaching of the resurrection was remembered and preserved by the early disciples because of Jesus’s literal fulfillment of this unique and unexpected promise.

Conclusion

Some of these arguments may be new to you and some may not. Some of these aspects will be further fleshed out in my pending dissertation. Nonetheless, the unique and unexpected nature of the resurrection, the early preaching of the resurrection, multiple sources, and Jesus’s early eschatological identification with the resurrection all speak strongly to the probability that Jesus literally rose from the dead on the first Easter Sunday. My hope is that these arguments for the resurrection of Jesus, in addition to the classic arguments, strengthen your faith and offer you hope that there is a life beyond this mere mortal existence.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)

Notes

[1] That is, providing I successfully defend my dissertation.

[2] Josephus contends that the Pharisees were so loved, and the Sadducees were so despised that the Sadducees would adopt certain notions from the Pharisees to find favor with the populace. Josephus, Antiq. 18.15–17.

[3] N. T. Wright, Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003), 205.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Max Wilcox, The Semitisms of Acts (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965), 171.

[6] Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2012), 131.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2^nd ed (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 266.

[9] C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments, 2^nd ed (London, UK: Hodder and Stoughton, 1944), 16.

[10] Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), x, 235.

[11] For a full discussion of the issues concerning this topic, see John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2000), 388–395.

[12] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scriptures come from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Original blog: https://bit.ly/3Mwb6bS

April 27, 2022/by Guest

5 Reasons the Resurrection of Jesus is NOT a Copy of Ancient Pagan Myths

3. Are Miracles Possible?, CrossExamined, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

We are coming up on a time of year when the resurrection of a virgin-born child whose followers called the “Good Shepherd” and “Messiah” is celebrated. He had twelve disciples, performed miracles, and sacrificed himself for the peace of the world. He was buried in a tomb only to rise from the dead three days later. His followers went on to celebrate his resurrection every year, and this celebration eventually became what we call “Easter.

Think I’m talking about Jesus?

Nope. I’m talking about Mithras.

This is a common claim that is made by skeptics all over popular media, the internet, and even in some universities. The only problem—it’s simply not true. According to Mithraic tradition, Mithras was born out of solid rock (I guess it counts if the rock was a virgin?) His birth was celebrated on December 25th, but Christians already knew that wasn’t the real date of Christ’s birth. There is no evidence that he had twelve disciples, sacrificed himself for world peace, or that he was called “Good Shepherd” or “Messiah.” Many mythological characters were thought to be miracle workers (so maybe they can have that one), but there is no evidence he ever even died—which makes his “resurrection” a wee bit of a dilemma.

Church Father Tertullian wrote about Mithraic believers acting out resurrection stories, but this was well after the time of the New Testament. So, if there are a couple of similarities between Jesus and Mithras, it could be that Mithraic believers copied the Christians….rather than the other way around.

Mithras isn’t the only pagan myth that Christians are accused of copying. Although most scholars are agreed that no such “dying and rising gods” existed before Christ,[1] here are 5 reasons the resurrection of Jesus could NOT be a copycat. (These 5 points are my summary of this 5 part video series by Dr. Michael Licona.)

1. Ancient myths about dying and rising gods were usually tied to agricultural cycles.

When I was a little girl I remember asking someone why there are thunder and lightning. I was jokingly told thunder meant either that God was clapping his hands or maybe the angels were bowling in heaven. In the ancient world, people would describe things like the change of seasons, drought, and rain in a similar way…to their children.

Imagine an ancient Egyptian little boy asking his mom why it hadn’t rained in a while. The mom might tell him the story of the storm god Ba’al who was swallowed by his brother Mot, the god of death and the underworld. When the mother of the two gods was able to convince Mot to let his brother go, it would rain again—thus explaining the cycle of rain.

Unlike pagan myths, which were annual events going back to the distant past, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time occurrence. It was reported as a recent event that happened within the lifetimes of the people who claimed to witness it—and it was not connected to agricultural cycles.

2. The earliest Christians were devout Jews who were highly sensitive to Jewish law and traditions.

First century Christians were constantly debating things related to the law. Should Jewish men maintain the temple purification rites? Should Gentile men be circumcised? Should Christians eat meat sacrificed to idols? These are the types of problems they took very seriously and went to great lengths to solve.

Bottom line—it’s absurd to conclude that people who were pious Jews, debating things as particular as whether or not Jewish and Gentile believers should even eat together—would borrow from pagan myths to create their own.

3. Correlation doesn’t equal causation.

During the course of human history, similarities in stories and parallels in experience are not going to be hard to find. For example, we are all familiar with a plane that took off from Massachusetts one morning and flew into one of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City between the 78th and 80th floors, killing everyone on the plane. You are probably thinking of the horrifying terrorist attack of 911 that forever changed our country. However, I’m actually referring to the B-52 that flew into the Empire State Building in 1945.

Although these two tragedies share some eerie similarities, there is no causal connection between them. Likewise, no causal connection has been shown between the resurrection of Jesus and pagan myths.

4. The comparisons are just not that impressive.

Much like the Mithras example given above, most of the pagan parallels are not that persuasive, once we get past the rhetoric and actually examine the evidence. The most comparable pagan myth that preceded the life of Jesus might be the story of a demi-god named Asclepius. Even so, the only thing that is really similar is that he, like Jesus, was known to be a healer, and according to the myth, raised someone from the dead.

Most of the pagan comparisons rely on taking bits and pieces from different ancient myths and figures that pre-dated Jesus and combine them with some real people who post-dated Him. The lengths one must go to in order to piece together a composite figure of Jesus is a bit of a stretch, and frankly, just not that impressive.

5. The abundance of myths doesn’t cancel out the evidence for the real resurrection of Jesus.

If you go to Barnes & Noble and take a look at the section for romance fiction, you will find cover after cover of helpless women trying to solve the biggest problem in their lives: which handsome and gallant hero will they choose? It’s a tired formula that borders on the ridiculous—but just because tons of romance fiction is out there—it doesn’t negate the idea that real romantic love exists.

The truth is that there are so many silly romantic novels because romance seems to be an insatiable desire of the human condition.

Life in the Roman Empire was brutal, with most people living in poverty, and given such a society, people were naturally looking for hope. They wanted to know that evil would be punished and goodness would be rewarded and that there would be life after death where justice would be done. Like the impetus behind modern romance fiction, this is a common desire of the human condition.

We should expect that stories would emerge that would satisfy this hope for immortality. This doesn’t mean that Jesus actually rising from the dead is fictitious or impossible. If we have good evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (which we do), there’s no reason to reject it simply because there may be some similarities in fictional stories.

This Easter, we don’t celebrate Mithras or some other impotent figure of an ancient fairy tale. We celebrate the true and living Savior who conquered death and the grave to save us and reconcile us to God. I pray this post helps you confidently agree with the angel at Jesus’ tomb by saying: He is risen!

Notes:

[1] Lund University Professor and Biblical Scholar T. N. D. Mettinger wrote, “The consensus among modern scholars—nearly universal—is that there were no dying and rising gods that preceded Christianity. They all post-dated the first century.” (Cited in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007, 160-61.)

Overcoming Apathy and the Straw Man Argument

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

As Christians, we are told to always be ready to give an answer for our faith. But for many of us, the opportunity seldom arises. In fact, by and large, it seems we are faced with apathy and indifference. Struggling to get past this with someone – to get them to actually think about the Christian message – requires the apologist to first deal with the source of the apathy.

One common source, in my experience, is what can be called the Santa Factor. This is the belief that Christians are simply deluding themselves when they believe in a God who will “deliver presents” to them when they die. Talking to skeptics about the rewards God has in store for those who place their trust in Him has little impact. It seems as real to them as the prospect of Santa leaving presents under their tree.

I had this confirmed recently in a conversation with an unbeliever. Seeing her indifference, I told her I felt like I was trying to talk to her about what presents she was hoping for from Santa, while she was just hanging back, secretly laughing at the absurdity of the whole concept. “It’s like I’m trying to list the reasons that there is a North Pole and flying reindeer,” I said, “and you are just politely nodding and wondering why so many people believe this … nonsense.” I asked her whether that was close to what she thought, and her reply was a candid “yes.” She thought the analogy to Santa was a perfect one, she said, one that captured her feelings in a very precise way.

Once this mindset is made clear, it’s easy to understand why my arguments gain no traction. Despite the soundness of the logic used in building my case for Christianity, to the unbeliever, I might as well be trying to explain how elves could conceivably build toys or how reindeer might possess gravity-altering organs. Since there are many reasons to believe that there is no Santa, and no reasons to believe the contrary, that conversation ends before it begins.

I have, as yet, found no sure-fire way to overcome this Santa Factor. I’d be interested to hear from any apologists who have. I do believe there is a necessary first step, however, and that is to show the skeptic that the Santa Factor is actually a variant of the “straw man” fallacy. Setting up a straw man involves defining the other side’s argument in an unfair or misleading way, and then concluding that you have the better argument when you knock down this “straw man.” When skeptics think of Christianity, they often picture a combination of strange images – Father Time with his flowing white beard, angels dancing on the heads of pins, virgin births, cannibalism, and strange “miracles.” A jumble of such images leaves the skeptic feeling comfortable rejecting the whole of Christianity as based on primitive superstitions and beliefs. Like the Santa myth, these beliefs might bring some comfort, and they’re great for tradition and ritual, but they are not really true. It’s all just a myth, based largely on “faith,” which translates roughly in their view to “wishful thinking.”

So, with that in mind, let’s take a closer look at the analogy. Santa, of course, is the supposed source of the gifts found under Christmas trees every Christmas morning. This explanation works for small children – giving them a wonderful period of anticipation and their parents a lever for a bit of behavior modification as kids struggle to remain on the “nice” list – but a moment’s reflection as a child matures would reveal that no one person could possibly build and deliver an endless stream of worldwide gifts. Not to mention keeping straight who gets what.

But considering the issue more critically, discovering that there is no Santa is not cause for concluding that there are no gifts under the tree, or that they appeared on their own. No, logic dictates that someone put the gifts there, someone with knowledge of the child, access to the home, and knowledge of the child’s wish list.

We too have “presents under our tree” that cry out for explanation. After all, we live in a universe, and on a planet, that are fine-tuned to support life. Life emerged on this planet at some point in the past and some of that life became conscious and intelligent. With that consciousness and intelligence, we can perceive and appreciate beauty and can argue about right and wrong, assuming as we do that there is a thing called morality that exists and should guide us. All these things need to be explained, and blithely concluding that God can’t be that explanation is not a rational move. Instead, the skeptic should embark upon an examination of the possible alternatives available through the use of thought and reason. Which worldview has a better explanation for all of this? Atheistic naturalism may have made sense in Darwin’s day when the universe was thought to be infinite in duration and DNA was not even suspected as the reason life displays such ordered variation. But today? Is it really plausible to assume that all the magnificence we see around us just happened on its own, with no guiding hand?

Consider: astrophysicists tell us that the universe arose from nothing 14 billion years ago. This means the universe, and time itself began to exist. But since all things that come into being require an adequate source, logic supports the conclusion that an intelligent, powerful, and transcendent being set it all in motion. Biologists today seek to make sense of the tremendous body of information that is encoded in DNA. The billions of lines of what is akin to computer code direct the construction of all life on this planet and understanding how to work with it has brought remarkable benefits to humanity. But wherever we find information, we must, of course, conclude that an intelligent source is at work. There are countless other questions that need an answer: how can the atheist explain the origin of life? If even the simplest form of cellular life contains millions of lines of DNA code, believing that it magically assembled itself from inert matter is, well, just as difficult to swallow as Santa making it down the chimney. The list of questions continues: from where does human intelligence come? How is it that inert matter became conscious and self-aware? Why do we have free will? If the universe determines all outcomes, as the secularist believes, then the free will we all intuitively recognize we possess is simply an illusion.

In the end, it really does take more blind – uncritical -faith to accept the secular view. The Christian worldview, by contrast, holds that an infinite, personal, and loving God created this universe, and us, for a purpose, and then revealed Himself to us in history. He did this in a way that provided evidence, both from the study of nature and from the personal testimony of witnesses who were so sure of what they saw and experienced – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth – that they suffered martyrdom rather than deny it. (Contrasting the two worldviews in detail is beyond the scope of this post, but the case is well made here and here.)

Will this overcome the Santa Factor? It should if the skeptic really gives it a fair hearing. But that of course depends on the skeptic and how open he is to seeing through his little game of make-believe.

¿Qué pensaba Jesús sobre el Antiguo Testamento?

Español

By Ryan Leasure

It’s not uncommon for Christians to throw shade at the Old Testament. These Christians say they love Jesus, but they could do without those early Jewish texts. In fact, many Christians suggest that much of the Old Testament is ahistorical. Events like the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a great fish, or the fiery judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah never happened. And then there’s the infamous quote that Christians simply need to “unhook themselves from the Old Testament” because so much of it is embarrassing or difficult to understand. Why can’t we focus on Jesus?

We can certainly sympathize with these sentiments. After all, the flood and the judgment of Sodom seem pretty incredible, and pretty harsh at that. Wouldn’t it be easier to ignore this ancient corpus? This stance seems reasonable until one realizes that the same Jesus whom these Christians worship also holds the Old Testament in high regard. He not only affirms the inspiration of the Old Testament, but also its historicity and authority.

The Old Testament is inspired

Historically, Christians have affirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. That is, they acknowledge that every word of Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16-17). At the same time, God spoke through a human agency. Therefore, Scripture not only has a divine author, it also has human authors.

Jesus affirmed the human authors of the Old Testament. He repeatedly acknowledges that Moses is the one who gave the Law (Matthew 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He will say things like, “Do what Moses commanded” (Mark 1:44). Oh, “Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’” (Mark 7:10). Concerning other Old Testament authors, Jesus states, “Well did Isaiah prophesy…” (Mark 7:6). Also, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared… .” (Mark 12:36). And “So when you see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet…” (Matthew 24:15). It is worth noting that almost all critical scholars question the authorship of these individuals, in clear contradiction to Jesus.

At the same time, Jesus affirms that these individuals wrote divinely inspired Scripture. As just alluded to, Jesus noted in Mark 12:36, “David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared…” In other words, David wrote, but his writings were the result of the work of the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20-21). He also declared, “Well did Isaiah prophesy…” (Mark 7:6). The mere mention of prophecy suggests that Isaiah wrote from God. Prophecy, after all, is by definition “a word from God.” The same could be said of Matthew 24:15 when Jesus refers to Daniel as “the prophet.” Furthermore, in addressing the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus states, “You forsake the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). He then clarifies that God’s commandment was what Moses wrote in Exodus 20.

As John Wenhan points out, “For [Jesus], Moses, the prophets, David, and the other writers of Scripture were truly inspired men with a message given by the Spirit of God.”

The Old Testament is historically accurate

While many are willing to concede the inspiration of the Old Testament, many of these same individuals deny that it is historically accurate on all points. They may affirm its historical nature in general (God created the world, called Abraham and the Jewish people, the Jews were exiled, etc.), but balk at some of the more difficult texts (the flood, Sodom, Jonah, etc.). That said, Jesus has no qualms about affirming the historical character of the Old Testament, even the most difficult texts to believe. Here are some examples:

He believed that Cain killed Abel (Luke 11:51), that God sent a flood but spared Noah on the ark (Matthew 24:37-39), and that God destroyed Sodom because of its wickedness (Matthew 11:23-24). He even adds, “Remember Lot’s wife” (Luke 17:32). Furthermore, Jesus believed that God sent manna from heaven (John 6:31), that the Israelites were healed by looking at the serpent (John 3:14), and that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish only to be put to death three days later (Matthew 12:39-41).

The last text about Jonah is especially significant because it shows that Jesus did not view these events merely figuratively. Indeed, at the end of the text we read: “The men of Nineveh will rise up with this generation in the judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here” (Mt 12:41 ESV). It is difficult to imagine how Jesus could claim that Nineveh would rise up in the final judgment against the people who rejected him, if it was a farce. The same could be said of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:37: “For as the days of Noah were, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (ESV). In other words, just as God’s judgment was poured out in the days of Noah, so it will be again at the final judgment.

Again, Wenham comments, “It is evident that [Jesus] was familiar with most of our Old Testament and treated it all equally as history.”2

The Old Testament has authority

Because Jesus believed the Old Testament was divinely inspired, he also claimed its full authority. He demonstrated this authority by appealing to the scriptures dozens of times.

When asked what the greatest commandments are, He declares that “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind . . . And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39). Jesus said that these two commandments (Deut. 6:4-6; Lev. 19:18) summarize the entirety of the Old Testament and are the guide for all ethical questions.

When faced with temptation, Jesus appealed to the authority of Scripture to fight Satan. He repeatedly declared, “It is written, it is written, it is written” (Matthew 4:1–11). Even when facing death, the last words He spoke were from the Old Testament (Psalm 22:1; 31:5).

Jesus appeals to Genesis 1-2 when speaking of marriage and divorce . He asks, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘ For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? They are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate . ” (Mt 19:4-6 ESV) By alluding to Genesis 1-2 here, Jesus is asserting that his position on marriage and divorce is rooted in the authority of the Old Testament text. In contrast, Jesus’ opponents rooted their position in different rabbis (Shammai and Hillel).

In disputing with the Sadducees about the resurrection, Jesus rebukes them: ” But Jesus answered and said to them, ‘ You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God . . . ‘” (Matthew 22:29 ESV). In other words, the Scriptures give us the definitive, authoritative word on the resurrection. Jesus goes on to ask them: “Have you not read what God said to you: ‘I am the God of Abraham . . . ‘” (Matthew 31–32). Again, Jesus appeals to the Old Testament text to affirm God’s power over the resurrection.

Jesus goes so far as to say that ” and the Scripture cannot be broken ” (John 10:35 ESV). For Jesus, Scripture is so powerful that nothing can undo it.

Jesus and the Old Testament

All the evidence taken together suggests that Jesus held the Old Testament in high regard. Those who claim to hold Jesus in high regard but reject some of the Old Testament teachings are being inconsistent. If Jesus is held in high regard, then the Old Testament must also be held in high regard. As John Wenham points out:

“For Christ, the Old Testament was true, authoritative, and inspired. For him, the God of the Old Testament was the living God, and the teaching of the Old Testament was the teaching of the living God. For him, what Scripture said, God said.”3

*For more information on this topic, see John Wenham’s book Christ and the Bible .

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ryan Leasure is the pastor of Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC. For more information about his background and interests, click here .

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/35RC9P5

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Jennifer Chavez

March 18, 2022/by Guest

Should Christians Pursue Personal Success?

Apologetics for Parents, Culture CrossExamined

By Mike Taylor

Have you ever found yourself looking at someone else’s life on social media and wondering how they’re able to do all that they do? We see people on Instagram taking vacations, buying cars, starting businesses, quitting their jobs, and doing other glamorous things all while simultaneously raising multiple kids and finishing their Master’s degree. Or so it seems, at least.

And as we take in their glorious life, we can’t help but wonder: how on earth do they have the time and money and energy to do these things?

Then we might start to wonder, “Is living a life focused on material wealth and personal success something God wants for us?” Because it feels like the glorification of wealth is everywhere we look nowadays, and Christians are often right at the forefront of the madness.

But is it okay for Christians to pursue these things? Is it okay for Christians to pursue personal success and material wealth in a capitalistic society?

Let’s keep it simple. Let’s go back to the things we need. We all need two things in our life: comfort and significance.

Look at Maslow’s hierarchy of needs:

Physiological needs (Food, water, shelter, etc.) = Comfort
Safety needs (Security, employment, resources, health, etc.) = Comfort
Love and belonging = Significance
Esteem (Respect, status, recognition, freedom) = Significance
Self-actualization (being the most you can be) = Significance

In that context, everything we pursue in life comes down to these two very basic categories: comfort and significance.

In fact, we will only give up one of those things inasmuch as we are able to gain from the other. It’s a very interesting dynamic.

For example, a person will only exercise (sacrificing comfort) if they believe that such an activity will give them more physical and mental significance. They’ll push themselves pretty hard in the gym if they believe that hard work and discipline will make them more significant.

The same is true of comfort. We’re typically only willing to give up the chance at being significant if it gains us a significant amount of comfort. Plenty of people spend a disproportionate amount of time outside of work and other obligations sitting on a couch eating junk food. We’re all guilty of this on some level, and the reason we do it is because we are, either consciously or unconsciously, making a decision to accept comfort in the place of significance. It’s a tradeoff we’re willing to make whether we realize it or not.

So, then, “success” is simply shorthand for more comfort and significance. If we explore what it means to be successful, we’ll find that everything we envision comes back to these two things.

So the question is: is God okay with me pursuing more comfort and significance?

Neither comfort nor significance is bad. In fact, I would argue that we are alive for these two reasons. All the best things about being alive bring some level of comfort. If we are uncomfortable, and if we are uncomfortable for no reason associated with future gain of comfort or significance, then something is probably wrong.

For example, if you’re experiencing increasing levels of discomfort in your back in the form of back pain, there’s probably something wrong. You instinctively know that because there is no end goal of achieving more comfort or significance from your back pain.

So discomfort in and of itself is not a good thing. Yet your body knows that and continually alarms you using discomfort and causing you to address potential long-term problems.

If you’re a follower of Jesus, then everything you believe is based on comfort and significance.

Heaven is comfort (Revelation 21:4), walking with God here on Earth brings comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3-4, Psalm 23:4), and being a child of God is where you find significance.

God made us to find comfort and significance in him, and like it or not, everything we do in our lives revolves around these two things.

The problem comes in when we lose focus on the right source of these two things.

Too often in our lives, we lean on other sources of both comfort and significance. We look to our jobs, our families, our social status, and any other number of things to help us gain comfort and significance.

The problem is, nothing ever fills the void, and people who mean well end up abandoning their false sources of comfort and significance without ever replacing those sources with the true source. Then we end up believing that comfort and significance are things that aren’t meant for us.

I cannot tell you how many people I’ve come across who live empty lives because they’ve come to believe that comfort and significance are bad things. And it’s true, when you’re reaching for the wrong source, they are bad things. But we were made for comfort and significance.

Think about the biblical history of the human race. At one point in our history, we had all the comfort and significance we wanted. We had every resource at our disposal and all the authority we could ever ask for. That was the garden of Eden. Except there was more.

There was one thing that seemed as if it could bring more comfort and significance, so we tried it out. We thought that if we just learned enough and tried hard enough then we could be the source of our own comfort and significance. Yet here we are today still trying the same tactics. It doesn’t bring lasting comfort or significance now just like it didn’t then.

But here’s where it gets fun. Once you can see and identify the problem, you actually have a chance at resolving it. Once you know that God intends for you to have comfort and significance, now you know what void to fill. Now you know what battle to fight.

The truth is, success is not something to be feared. Not all dreams in your heart are not things to be stifled. It’s not always pride and it’s not always the enemy trying to destroy your life through aspirations.

You’re alive for a purpose, and that purpose can and should bring you sentence comfort and significance (i.e., success). If we can learn to fight the battle within ourselves – the battle of trying to gain comfort and significance on our own instead of pulling them from God – then we’ve learned to fight the only battle worth fighting, the fight of faith.

The faith you and I are fighting for is the belief that comfort and significance come from a higher source and not from our own abilities to achieve. So don’t shy away from success. Success is just shorthand for comfort and significance, and God had every intention of making you successful.

Instead of seeing success as something to shun, see it for what it is – a gift from your Father. Once you realize that, then you’ll find increasing gratitude and fulfillment that, frankly, only come from seeing success. If you see yourself as a lowly person whose job it is to give up everything good for the sake of self-denial, then what do you have to be grateful for? How are you tasting and seeing that the Lord is good? (Psalm 34:8)

God promises prosperity for his people when they listen and follow him (Psalm 1:1-3, Leviticus 26). Jesus said, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” He said “all” these things – not the bare minimum of these things. God doesn’t want you to live a life in despair. In fact, I’ll say it this way: God wants you to have it all, he just doesn’t want it all to have you.

So we shouldn’t shun success, and we certainly shouldn’t speak against those who have success. Ecclesiastes 10:20 says, “Do not revile the king even in your thoughts, or curse the rich in your bedroom.” Instead, like Jesus said, “use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” Use success as a tool for godly influence.

Success is a magnifying glass – it makes you more of what you already are. And if you ask me, the world needs more successful Christ-hearted people.

A Myth Come True

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Bob Perry

If you’re anything like me, you probably associate the word “myth” with an ancient fairy tale. The Greek and Roman pantheon of gods comes to mind — magical spells, curses, and multi-headed monsters. But myths are more than just old-fashioned fantasies. They serve a purpose. They appeal to our collective imaginations. Myths may be fantastical but, as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary puts it, they “serve to unfold part of the worldview of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.” They are archetypal stories that help us make sense of the world in which we find ourselves. In other words, there is a connection between myth and reality.

The Power of a Story

C.S. Lewis grew up a voracious reader. In 1916, while waiting for a train near London, he bought a copy of George MacDonald’s Phantastes: A Faerie Romance. The book changed his life, not because it enticed him to believe in fantasies, but because it “baptized his imagination” through the power of story. His appreciation for man’s moral imagination led to a lifetime of reading and writing stories. He later studied ancient Greek and Latin literature, philosophy, and Medieval and Renaissance literature. He taught and lectured on all of those during his 29 years as a professor at Magdalen College, University of Oxford.

Great Minds Don’t Always Think Alike

While he was at Oxford, Lewis became friends with J. R. R. Tolkien. They argued about philosophy, religion, and the existence of God. Both were storytellers. And they argued about how to tell stories too. Tolkien, the author of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, believed that myths originated in the mind of God as a way to communicate his truths to the world. Lewis thought that was nonsense. Though he saw myths as beautiful charmers of our imaginations, he thought “they were lies: inventions that contain no objective truth about the world.”*

C.S. Lewis struggled with the relationship between myth, imagination, and reality for years. But it wouldn’t let him go. Finally, in 1929, alone in the quiet of his room at Magdalen College, he succumbed to God’s call. And I do mean succumbed.

The Most Reluctant Convert

Lewis describes his two-step conversion — from atheist to theist to Christian — in his autobiography, Surprised by Joy. He knew mythology. And he was intellectually honest enough to read the Christian Scriptures. Something about them rang true. Ultimately, it was his love for truth and stories that merged in the pages of the Gospels:

“I was … too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospels as myths. They had not the mythical taste. And yet the very matter which they set down in their artless, historical fashion . . . was precisely the matter of the great myths. If ever a myth had become fact, had been incarnated, it would be just like this. And nothing else in all literature was just like this …

Myths were like it in one way. Histories were like it in another. But nothing was simply like it … And no person was like the Person it depicted; as real, as recognizable, through all that depth of time, as Plato’s Socrates . . . yet also numinous, lit by a light from beyond the world, a god … But if a god — we are no longer polytheists — then not a god, but God. Here and here only in all time, the myth must have become fact; the Word, flesh; God, Man. This is not ‘a religion,’ nor ‘a philosophy.’ It is the summing up and actuality of them all.”**

The God who became flesh made sense of the two things C. S. Lewis knew and loved the most. He surrendered to the divine call. Lewis entered God’s kingdom kicking and screaming, “the most reluctant convert in all of England.”

Storytellers

C.S. Lewis’s conversion is notorious but it’s not unique. History is littered with the accounts of reluctant converts who were struck by the peculiar force of the Christian myth. He and Tolkien became two of the most famous storytellers to do so.

“Fortified by their faith, they proclaimed for their generation — and ours — a True Myth about the dignity of human life and its relationship to God. Against all expectation, their writings would captivate and inspire countless readers from every culture and every part of the globe … as mythmakers, [their writing] created new worlds … invented new languages, and transported us into realms of brooding darkness and unforgettable beauty.”***

In the end, Tolkien and Lewis rejected the secular myth that had dragged the world through two World Wars and into the empty despair of the postmodern worldview. They were masterful at appealing to our moral imaginations. They connected myth to reality.

The True Myth

The Christian myth is a story of the struggle between good and evil. It’s a story of flawed and rebellious people, heroes, and villains. Ultimately, it’s the most fantastic story of redemption ever told. And its hero is — as my friend Tom Gilson has put it in his book by the same name — simply “too good to be false.” Gilson’s point is that Jesus of Nazareth is the most compelling character in human history for a reason. He stepped into the story he wrote.

Jesus’ life and ministry are recorded and verifiable. The veracity of the accounts of his death and resurrection are as reliable as those of any historical event. But his impact goes beyond the reliable accounts about it. As J. Warner Wallace has so clearly summarized it in his book, Person of Interest, Jesus’ life rocked the world, even for those who never believed in him. He influenced education, literature, music, art, architecture, and science in ways that no mere mortal ever could. We restarted our calendars because of his life. He quite literally changed the world by combining history’s most fascinating character with mythology’s most compelling storyline.

He brought the myth to life.

Heaven Meets Earth

In Jesus, the infinite voluntarily reduced itself to something we could see and understand. The divine put on flesh and bone. The all-powerful became a pain-feeling person who stood for the powerless. The Almighty who spoke the universe into existence took the form of a tiny, vulnerable embryo. The Great Mythical ‘I AM’ became a little boy.

Contemplating that, I was reminded of a talented musician named Rich Mullins. Mullins died tragically in a car wreck in 1997, at age 41. But his music always resonated with me. It was thought-provoking, vulnerable, and real. Rich Mullins was a storyteller. So, it’s not surprising that the same guy who wrote the classic worship song, “Awesome God,” also wrote the little tune I offer you below.

Here, Mullins does with music what C. S. Lewis did with literature. He brings the myth to life. It will never become a classic in the genre, but that’s why I consider Rich Mullins’ “Boy Like Me” to be a Christmas song. Maybe you will too …

Boy Like Me

You was a baby like I was once … You was cryin’ in the early morn’

You was born in a stable, Lord … Reid Memorial is where I was born.

They wrapped You in swaddling clothes … Me they dressed in baby blue.

Well, I was twelve years old in the meeting house, listening to the old men pray,

And I was tryin’ hard to figure out what it was that they was tryin’ to say.

There You were in the temple … They said You weren’t old enough to know the things You knew

Well, did You grow up hungry? Did You grow up fast?

Did the little girls giggle when You walked past?

Did You wonder what it was that made them laugh?

And did they tell You stories ’bout the saints of old? Stories about their faith?

They say stories like that make a boy grow bold. Stories like that make a man walk straight.

And You was a boy like I was once … But was You a boy like me?

Well, I grew up around Indiana. You grew up around Galilee

And if I ever really do grow up … Lord, I want to grow up and be just like You.

References:

* Joseph Loconte, A Hobbit, A Wardrobe and a Great War (Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015), pp. 130-131.

** C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1956), pp. 236.

*** Loconte, p. 138.

¿No me crees? Confírmalo tú mismo

Español

Por Andrew Cowley

Cuando tenía 14 años, negaba públicamente (y con sinceridad) la existencia de Dios. Estaba totalmente convencido de que Dios no existía y que los que creían en Dios eran ilusos, poco inteligentes, ingenuos y emocionalmente débiles. Creer en Dios era cosa de cuentos de hadas, —no algo intelectual o racional. Como ateo, me subí en los hombros de gigantes como Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins y Christopher Hitchens. Me deleitaba con la idea de que estaba en todo mi derecho de hacer comentarios sarcásticos a los creyentes y de reírme con orgullo cuando un creyente decía que tenía “fe” en lo que creía. ¿”Fe”? Eso es tema de niños y Papá Noel, ¡no para el intelectual moderno que se basa en la evidencia empírica y la lógica!

Un mes después de que cumpliera 28 años, comencé a leer de manera objetiva y con una mente abierta, libros sobre la resurrección, el cristianismo histórico y la apologética cristiana.

Algo curioso ocurre cuándo empiezas a mirar objetivamente y aprendes sobre el tema que con vehemencia has criticado y descartado sin pensarlo dos veces… Empiezas a notar cosas que nunca encontrarías en el New York Times, en la entrada/publicación de un blog escrito por un Objetivista, o en un meme que se ha compartido miles de veces en Facebook que afirma que Jesús es sólo una imitación de ese dios pagano que existió hace mucho, mucho tiempo. Empiezas a darte cuenta de las pruebas históricas que parecen apuntar a la misma conclusión una y otra vez. Empiezas a leer libros de historiadores antiguos que no tienen nada que ver con los autores de la Biblia, pero aún ellos hablan de alguien a quien llaman “Jesús” y de lo que un grupo de “cristianos” han estado haciendo desde su muerte y resurrección[1]. Libros como The Resurrection of the Son of Man (La Resurrección del Hijo del Hombre) de N.T. Wright parecen de repente obras brillantes de investigación histórica que no sólo pueden refutar las afirmaciones vacías de que Jesús no era único, sino que sientan una base incuestionable de por qué la resurrección de Cristo fue un hecho real que tuvo lugar y es la mejor explicación de porqué los más cercanos a Cristo vivieron y murieron por Él. Los libros de la Biblia ya no parecen ser piezas tomadas de cuentos de hadas, son pedazos de historia que pueden ser atestiguados por las personas que realmente estuvieron allí. Los autores de la Biblia son como los testigos oculares independientes (y testigos que realmente hablaron con los que allí vivían) que son fiables y precisos.

Fue extremadamente difícil dejar de lado mis prejuicios y ver la evidencia como lo que era: la Biblia es un documento histórico escrito por personas de carne y hueso que experimentaron cosas reales. Jesús realmente vivió y caminó en esta tierra, tuvo cientos (si no es que miles) de seguidores que fueron torturados y asesinados por creer que Él era el Hijo de Dios, y escribieron sobre ello. La Biblia (y más específicamente, el evangelio) fue escrita por personas que verdaderamente estuvieron allí. De hecho, San Pablo reta a todos los que dudan al decirnos que si no le creemos a él, vayamos y preguntemos a los cientos de personas que estuvieron allí. Seguramente estarán de acuerdo con lo que él te está diciendo.[2]

Y éste es el gran reclamo para “los cuentos de hadas” y es que no creas en algo que no puede comprobarse. No olvidemos que San Pablo persiguió activamente a los cristianos y habló en contra de Cristo antes de su conversión. En otras palabras, San Pablo no quería creer en las afirmaciones de Cristo, pero no pudo negarlo una vez que lo vio, y lo experimentó por sí mismo. Esencialmente, Pablo odiaba a Cristo y a sus seguidores, pero no pudo hacer otra cosa excepto creer.

Aunque, debo admitir, que creer en la resurrección parece ir en contra de lo que experimentamos día a día. La gente no resucita de entre los muertos, al menos no en nuestra experiencia. A medida que lees sobre la vida, la muerte y la resurrección de nuestro Señor y Salvador, empiezas a cuestionar seriamente lo que es o no es posible. Para alguien que afirma ser Dios, más le vale que tenga un argumento —y una prueba— asombrosa de por qué debemos creerle. Después de todo, cualquiera puede afirmar ser Dios y decir que resucitó de entre los muertos, —pero la afirmación por sí sola no la convierte en verdad. Bien se dice “Las afirmaciones extraordinarias requieren pruebas extraordinarias”.

Acertadamente, Cristo entendió esto y reconoció nuestro escepticismo. Cristo sabía que tendría que haber una prueba innegable de que era el Hijo del Hombre y de que había cumplido todo lo que se había propuesto. Cristo no sólo resucitó de entre los muertos (tal como había prometido), sino que reveló públicamente su cuerpo resucitado para que todos lo vieran. Con todo y eso, algunos de los discípulos no podían creer lo que veían[3] —francamente, no los culpo. Ver a Cristo en su forma glorificada debió ser verdaderamente aterrador y gozoso a la vez. Pero, Cristo disolvió toda duda. Les dijo que tocaran su cuerpo y sintieran sus muy reales heridas. Ni siquiera el mejor estudio científico en las mejores circunstancias puede aseverar el tener una prueba tan innegable como la que ¡experimentaron! los discípulos (y muchos otros).

Después de las apariciones de Cristo, nadie pudo convencer a los testigos de otra cosa que no fuera creer que Cristo mismo se les apareció en un cuerpo glorificado y resucitado. Ni la tortura, ni la muerte, ni la ejecución pública, ni ninguna otra cosa pudo hacerles cambiar de parecer. Ellos sabían lo que vieron, y lo que vieron realmente sucedió.

Pienso que una objeción totalmente válida a considerar es que los discípulos mintieron sobre haber visto a Cristo resucitado. Sin embargo, deberíamos preguntarnos: “¿Por qué alguien se aferraría a una mentira sabiendo muy bien que lo matarían por sostener esa mentira?”.

Ten en cuenta que no había nada que ganar, pero sí todo que perder, al sostener tal mentira. Piensa en esto por un momento… ¿Sostendrías una mentira que sabes a ciencia cierta que no sucedió, si te enfrentaras a una muerte y tortura segura? Yo no lo haría y me cuesta creer que alguien lo haga.

Sin embargo, no es lo mismo cuando alguien muere por sostener sus creencias(es decir, morir por alguna causa). No se puede confundir a alguien que muere por un hecho que sabe que no ocurrió con alguien pierde la vida por una creencia personal. Espero que puedas ver la diferencia entre estos dos escenarios. La sinceridad de los discípulos (y de los cristianos posteriores) más la conversión de Pablo son un testimonio de lo poderosa que es esta afirmación histórica, la cual demuestra que la resurrección de Cristo es en verdad la mejor explicación, —especialmente si se tiene en cuenta el trasfondo histórico de los relatos.

No soy cristiano porque quiera serlo, soy cristiano porque no tengo otra opción. Dios me ha llamado a su rebaño y he respondido a ese llamado con todo mi corazón, mi mente y mi alma. Mi oración sincera es que todas las personas puedan escuchar ese llamado también.

Notes

[1] Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

[2] 1 Corintios 15:5-8

[3] Juan 20:24-29

Recursos recomendados en Español:

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Andrew Cowley obtuvo su Licenciatura en Filosofía en la Universidad de Utah, sirvió en el ejército de los Estados Unidos y es un prolífico autor. Quien antes fuera un ateo devoto, ahora sirve a Cristo y se aferra a la promesa que brinda el evangelio.

Blog Original: https://cutt.ly/DI4GoS0

Traducido por Mónica Pirateque

Editado por Gustavo Camarillo

January 28, 2022/by Guest

What Would It Take To Prove That God Doesn’t Exist?

2. Does God Exist?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

Atheists who feel certain that there is no God are staking out a rather interesting position. As a corollary of their position, they are of course also convinced that those who believe in God are engaging in a form of wishful thinking, that their desire to believe in a “cosmic judge” of good and evil clouds their thinking, preventing them from following where “the science” actually leads, as they believe they have done. Indeed, many believe that religion is no more than the opiate of the masses. But a bit of careful consideration will lead to quite the opposite conclusion. Holding to atheism may have some superficial appeal, as the theist must concede that it is not possible to directly see or experience God. But pretending to know with certainty that there is no God, no supreme and perfect being, is itself an act of wishful thinking. Granted, completely eliminating doubt as to God’s existence is not possible, nor can we know fully or with certainty God’s character or attributes. But being certain he’s not there? That’s a decisive conclusion to draw.

What reasons or evidence do atheists provide in support of their conclusion? Most no doubt rely on their belief in Darwinian evolution as a satisfactory alternative explanation for how life appeared on this planet. Others might point to the existence of evil in the world and contend that an all-powerful and all-loving God would not allow evil to exist. Since evil does exist, God doesn’t. Still, others will attack the claims of theists, arguing for instance what they take to be contradictions in the resurrection accounts and concluding that all religion is just so much wishful thinking. But “knowing” that there is no God requires much more than any of these rationales could provide. In order to be entirely certain that there is no God, that in other words nowhere in the universe can God be found, one would have to have access to, well, the entire universe. Given the size and scope of the visible universe, this is quite a task. Add to that any aspects or dimensions that may elude our senses and the task becomes even more insurmountable.

Here is the odd thing about such a quest. In order to really satisfy oneself that the universe is devoid of God, the searcher must attain complete knowledge of the universe, for any lack of knowledge could relate to the very place that God is present. Moreover, since an all-powerful God would theoretically precede and transcend this universe, one would have to have the capability to examine anything that exists beyond the universe, a task beyond the reach of science. In short, then, one must become omniscient – possess total and complete knowledge of all places and all things – for only then could they know with the certainty atheism connotes that we are not in fact creatures of an intelligent and powerful creator but the products of mindless evolution.

Ironically, of course, at this point, the searcher would possess the very attributes of God. Proving the truth of atheism is, in the end, a futile quest, for one would need to be godlike to prove that God doesn’t exist.

Now to this conclusion some might object, arguing that by this reasoning, no one could be certain that unicorns or tooth fairies do not exist, since there is no way to prove these negatives either. But such a contention would miss the point. First, while there are no good reasons to believe in the existence of such mythical creatures, there are by contrast many logically compelling reasons to conclude that an uncaused first cause is necessary to explain that which we see around us. There are arguments from the design inherent in nature and the fine-tuning seen in the universe, as well as by the existence of evil. Each individual argument is logically sound and combined they are, to most who have considered them, sufficient warrant to believe that a Supreme Being must exist.

Moreover, the stakes involved are completely different. Being wrong about whether a unicorn can be found somewhere does not bring with it the same consequences as the question of whether there is a perfect being out there who created us. The former is simply a matter of intellectual curiosity. But the latter carries with it much weightier questions regarding who we are, why we are here, and most importantly, whether anything is expected of us by the One who brought us into being.

Weighty questions, worthy of our careful consideration.

¿Quién es la persona de mayor relevancia?

Español

Why are we so interested in murders? Some of the most popular podcasts, videos, and news headlines are about high-profile homicides. We are often consumed by the prime suspect who police often call a “person of interest.” Right now, are the headlines fixated on Brian Laundrie? Where is he? Did he do it? If so, why? And will he be served justice?

Unfortunately, in the long run, the person of interest is often remembered far more than their victims. We remember names like Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer and Ted Bundy, but we often forget those they killed.

But what if there is one big exception to that typical outcome? What if the most memorable and influential name in human history is not a villain, but a murder victim?

Unsolved homicide detective J. Warner Wallace exposes exactly that case in his astonishing new book Person of Interest . Wallace shows the unprecedented impact that a murdered Jewish preacher from an obscure corner of the former Roman Empire has had on the world over the past two thousand years.

Jesus of Nazareth is not only the central figure of the world’s largest religion, he is also the central figure of influence in all of human history. In a book packed with more than 400 of his own explanatory drawings, Wallace demonstrates that even if all Bibles and manuscripts were to suddenly disappear from the planet, the “explosive” appearance of Jesus and his essential teachings could be reconstructed from the “fuse” of ancient history and the “effects” of the past two thousand years.

Consider for a moment the impact Jesus had on literature . More has been written about Jesus than any other character in history. To date, more than 109 million books have been written about Jesus (George Washington is a distant second with nearly 59 million books). No one, and I mean no one , has inspired authors and writers like Jesus of Nazareth, and this influence started early.

Wallace illustrates a robust list of Christian and non-Christian voices found in ancient manuscripts from the first centuries of the Common Era – more non-Christian than Christian – describing Jesus and his followers. From these early voices, the entire story of Jesus can be reconstructed even if all the New Testament manuscripts had been destroyed.

Jesus dominates another form of literature: screenplays. Wallace brings together the films made about Jesus of Nazareth into an illustration that demonstrates Jesus’ unprecedented impact on film producers ( The Jesus Film , for example, remains the most translated and viewed film of all time). But there is more. Great thinkers and theologians have written about Jesus throughout the centuries, establishing a robust Christian publishing industry that flourishes to this day. Even non-Christians are compelled to allude to Jesus in one way or another. Christ figures—parallels to Jesus—flood not only classical literature but even popular fiction.

It would take much more than the New Testament to wipe Jesus off the pages of the world. It would take a lot of literary history to be destroyed .

But that’s just one aspect of the “effect” that Jesus is credited with. Wallace also describes and illustrates the monumental impact Jesus had on education, science, art, music, and other world religions. Unlike other books that simply explain Jesus’ role in human history, Person of Interest uncovers the hidden evidence you may not have considered in the aspects of culture most admired by nonbelievers . Jesus’ impact has been seismic, and from His footprints in every area of human history, His story can be completely reconstructed.

How did a man who never led an army, never held office, never founded a company, never wrote a book, never had children, never traveled more than 200 miles from his birthplace—a man who was murdered two thousand years ago—become the most important and influential person of interest in all of human history?

Maybe because he wasn’t just a man. Maybe because his killers couldn’t keep him in the grave. Person of Interest will leave you thinking and feeling that that is, by far, the most reasonable explanation.

Recommended resources in Spanish:

Stealing from God ( Paperback ), ( Teacher Study Guide ), and ( Student Study Guide ) by Dr. Frank Turek

Why I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist ( Complete DVD Series ), ( Teacher’s Workbook ), and ( Student’s Handbook ) by Dr. Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Frank Turek is the president of CrossExamined.org and co-author of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and author of Robbing God: Why Atheists Need God. He can be found on Twitter at @DrFrankTurek .

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/qY46J1P

Translated by Jennifer Chavez

Edited by Elenita Romero

January 7, 2022/by Frank Turek