Tag Archive for: Jesus

3 Reasons Why Jesus Is The Only Way

3 Reasons Why Jesus Is The Only Way

,

By Tim Stratton

Sermon Outline

Riddle me this: What’s black and white and RED all over?

I remember the first time my dad posed that question to me when I was a young child. Even as a little boy – untrained in philosophy – I knew something was amiss.

I intuitively understood that if something was literally black and white . . . like a news paper . . . then it could not be the COLOR RED all over. After all, something cannot be the colors RED and Black and White simultaneously and in the same sense. There’s a contradiction here – nothing can actually be black and white AND the color red ALL OVER.

Then my dad explained to me that there was a “play on words” going on here – a “word game!” The “read all over” doesn’t refer to a color, but refers to the fact that someone can read the entire newspaper, and thus, the black and white newspaper will be READ all over.

Now, why can’t a newspaper actually be black and white AND the COLOR RED all over? Because this statement violates the logical law of non-contradiction.

The Laws of The Logos

How many of you know about the laws of logic?

I actually discuss the laws of logic in my book (my doctoral dissertation which was published last year). The first chapter is focused on how to properly interpret The Bible. Think about it: Interpreting Scripture correctly presupposes and depends upon the laws of logic. There are three fundamental Laws of Logic that are always required in rational discussion – and in interpreting Scripture:

  • The Law of Identity: Something is what it is. Things that exist have specific properties that identify them.

Let’s talk about God. Christians typically recognize God as a Maximally Great Being who possesses certain properties such as omnipotence (perfect power), omniscience (perfect knowledge), and omnibenevolence (perfect love for all people). Some theologians claim that God does not love all people and thus, based on the Law of Identity, worship a different God. I have noted that this is dangerously close to idolatry (see this short video for more).

  • The Law of Excluded Middle: A well-defined proposition is either true or false. There is no middle position. For example, the proposition that “A proposition is either true or false” is either true or false.

I’ve often said that the Law of the Excluded Middle is my favorite logical law! Think about it this way: God either exists or He doesn’t (there is no middle position). Jesus either physically rose from the dead, or He didn’t.

  • The Law of Non-Contradiction: When two claims contradict one another, one must be false.For example, if one person claims that God exists and another asserts that God does not exist, we can know that one of us must be correct and the other must be wrong. When two propositions contradict one another, one must be false and the other must be true; they cannot both be true and they cannot both be false.Similarly, when two contrary statements are made (not to be confused with contradictory statements) we can know that at least one of them must be false (even though both of them could be false). If Bill says that “the moon is made entirely of green cheese” and Bob says “the moon is made entirely of blue cheese,” then these contrary statements cannot both be true. Either Bill or Bob must be wrong. In fact, both Bill and Bob are wrong.Now, let’s talk about contradictions: As Wayne Grudem puts it, “Contradictions aren’t acceptable in the study of systematic theology, since there aren’t any contradictions in the Bible.”

This presupposition is supported by Scripture itself. For example, Psalm 119:160 states that the sum of your words is truth and this implies, in turn, that God’s Word, which Christians believe is true in all that it teaches, will be logical when studied in the context as a whole.

Wayne Grudem continues:

“There are many times we need to acknowledge mystery, paradox, and things we can’t fully understand. But that’s different from saying there’s a [logical] contradiction. God never asks us to believe a contradiction.”

These laws are just as necessary to keep a person grounded in rationality as the law of gravity is necessary to keep them grounded on the earth. The laws of logic are tools which help a person to objectively determine true or false propositions, inferences, and deductions.

In my book I wrote the following:

“Logical laws apply to everyone regardless of when or where he lives, that is to say, the laws of logic transcend humanity and are objectively true. In fact, truth and logic are inextricably linked—one cannot have one without the other. Thus, if Christians claim that Christianity is true, then the affirmations of Christianity must be logical.”

Now, many people these days assert that “all religions are true!” Based on the laws of logic, however (namely, the law of non-contradiction), we KNOW this cannot be true! Consider statements made from different worldviews/religions:

Mohammad VS Jesus

Love those who consider you to be an enemy VS. Kill the infidel! (Which one is it?)

Hinduism VS Islam

“There are multiple gods” VS. “Allah is the one true God.” Both cannot be true

Buddhism VS Judaism

These religions contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive. They might both be false, but they cannot both be true. (BTW: They are both false).

Atheism VS Theism

Based on the logical law of the excluded middle, God either exists or He doesn’t. Since atheism says God does not exists and Christians, Jews, and Muslims claim that God does exist, one might not know what worldview is true, but one can KNOW – with certainty – that both views cannot be true simultaneously.

These views are mutually exclusive.

Every other view VS Mere Christianity

“God raised Jesus from the dead.” If those six words comprising that one statement is true, then some flavor of Christianity is true. CS Lewis described this as “Mere Christianity.” This leads us to what has been called “the most hated words in the Bible.” This verse is contained within today’s passage of Scripture.

READ: John 14:1-14

14 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”

5 Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”

6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know[b] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”

9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

Let’s pray . . .

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one gets to the Father, but by me.”

In 1998 the great theologian and philosopher known as Madonna confidently declared (on MTV):

“All ways lead to God!”

Madonna, although I don’t remember her saying anything about Jesus at the time, was directly opposing Jesus. Well, based on the laws of logic, we must ask the question:

“Who is right!? Madonna or Jesus?”

If Madonna is right, then Jesus is wrong. But if Jesus is right, then Madonna is wrong.

In fact, just a couple weeks ago a survey was published showing that over 60% of self-described “born-again Christians in America between the ages of 18 and 39 do NOT believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to Heaven — and that Buddha and Muhammad also are valid paths to salvation, the Christian Post reported.

The Church (at large and across our nation) is in BIG TROUBLE!

Today, I’m going to give you reason to put your trust in the words of Jesus (as opposed to Madonna) and provide reasons as to WHY Jesus is THE ONLY WAY. In fact, all people should see that Jesus is the only way – the only way to eternal life in Heaven – for three reasons.

Reason #1: God raised Jesus from the dead!

God raised Jesus from the dead (thus, seemingly placing His divine stamp of approval on everything Jesus said, taught, and exemplified – and upon those Jesus chose to continue His teachings).

I don’t have time to unpack all of this right now, but based on the historical method – the same historical method that historians employ to find out facts about the past – the same historical method that historians have employed to find out facts about Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and so many more – is the same historical method historians have employed to find out certain facts about the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

If you’d like to learn more please watch four videos I recorded about the historical resurrection on my YouTube channel:

Part 1- Historical Facts: https://cutt.ly/KYPicUq

Part 2- Examining the Evidence: https://cutt.ly/0YPibBB

Part 3- Hallucinations, Aliens, and Other Silly Ideas: https://cutt.ly/FYPiQ9e

Part 4- The Good News of the Resurrection: https://cutt.ly/mYPiRH5

Historians seek independent sources, such as, eyewitness accounts, both positive and embarrassing. These sources are plentiful when it comes to the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Mike Licona states that we have as much evidence of the resurrection, if not more, than we have of Julius Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon in 49 BC.

He notes that even the harshest skeptical and atheistic historians admit several things as historical fact about Jesus. For example:

  1. Jesus existed.
  2. Jesus died by crucifixion.
  3. Jesus’ disciples (at least) really believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to them.
  4. The church persecutor, and Christian hunter, Saul was radically transformed into the Jesus preaching Paul.
  5. The skeptic James (the brother of Jesus) was suddenly changed into someone who was willing to die for the gospel.
  6. The tomb of Jesus was found empty by his women followers.

Licona makes his case even stronger by utilizing a “minimal facts” approach that does not even reference the Gospels, meaning that even if the Gospels did not exist these facts about Jesus remain:

  1. Paul was an eyewitness (hostile).
  2. Paul knew Jesus’ disciples.
  3. Paul taught what the disciples taught.
  4. They taught appearances to individuals and groups, to friend and foe alike.
  5. They and Paul taught (and believed) Jesus was physically raised from the dead.

Points one through four are accepted facts regarding Jesus and the fifth, although not accepted by many skeptics, remains unrefuted. So, when it comes to the historical method we need to ask the following question:

What hypothesis best accounts for all of these facts?

In Licona’s book, he demonstrates that the resurrection hypothesis accounts for all of these facts – while no other scientific hypothesis offered accounts for all of these together. The best explanation of the facts is the hypothesis which makes sense of all of them together.

The resurrection hypothesis is the only one left on the table.

For a deep dive into this study, I recommend Licona’s book: “The Resurrection of Jesus.”

Bottom line: if God raised Jesus from the dead, then some flavor of Christianity has gotta be true. And if God raised Jesus from the dead, then it seems that God has given His divine stamp of approval to the words and life of Jesus . . . and we have no reason to think He has done so for Madonna.

Thus, a rational and logical person should follow Jesus on this matter and believe what He says in John 14:6 – Jesus is the ONLY WAY and NO ONE gets to the Father except through Jesus!

So, the first reason why you should believe that Jesus is the ONLY WAY, is because we have historical evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead (that’s great reason to celebrate Easter)! This seems to be a divine stamp of approval upon the life and teachings of Jesus, and since Jesus taught that He is the ONLY WAY, we have good reason to believe Him.

But this raises the philosophical question: WHY is Jesus the only way to God? This leads us to the next point:

Reason #2: Jesus is God!

 Jesus is the only way to God because He is God.

Hold up! You might be thinking: Doesn’t saying that Jesus IS God violate the logical law of identity or the law of non-contradiction? Isn’t this some kind of a logical error?

A few months ago I led a youth group to Salt Lake City and BYU was kind enough to host our group, give us guided tour of their beautiful campus, they gave each one of us a nice BYU ball cap, and then we had a time of Q&A with one of the top Mormon leaders in Salt Lake.

One thing my Mormon friend said was that our view of Christianity had to be false because it is non-sensical to say that we worship ONE person and THREE persons at the same time.

I respectfully interrupted him and said,

“That’s not an accurate description of the Trinity, sir. We worship ONE WHAT and THREE WHOS. When one distinguishes between the WHAT and the WHOS one can see that there is no logical contradiction in saying that Jesus IS God . . . He is just not God the Father. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity, known as “The Son.” 

So, the concept of “Jesus being God” is logically coherent . . . but do we have biblical reason to think Jesus actually is the Creator of the universe? Consider what both John and Paul say about Jesus. Since we are in the Gospel of John, let’s start there and rewind to the beginning . . .

John 1: states the following:

 “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made…. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

Now, I just mentioned Easter, but this is the message of Christmas — God “dwelt among us” (Immanuel)!

What I want you to see here is that The Bible refers to Jesus as “The Logos” and implies that not only is Jesus God, but also gives us some insight into the Trinity. From a theological perspective, this passage of scripture carries much weight.

Science Supports Scripture

Do you know that we actually have scientific evidence supporting this scripture?

To quickly summarize: The current scientific consensus strongly supports the theory that all nature (the stuff that scientists can test and discover) had an absolute beginning (big bang cosmology, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin Theorem of 2003).

Everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the evidence demonstrates that the universe (all nature) began to exist. It follows that since nature began to exist, nature cannot be the cause of nature itself. Therefore, the cause of nature must be something other than nature (supernatural).

This is exactly what the first chapter of John is stating about Jesus – he is the supernatural cause of the natural universe, and he entered into his creation so that we could know him. Think about that! The Creator of the universe entered into the universe to save the people within the universe. This is what Christmas is all about. This is why we have good reason to celebrate Christmas.

To survey some of the science supporting scripture (and more), click here!

“The Logic”

Another thing to keep in mind when reading the first Chapter of John is that the Greek word for “word” – “Logos” – is used synonymously with Jesus in the text. It is interesting to note that “logos,” in Greek, means, “the principle of reason.” This is where we get the word “logic.”

The Bible is clear that Jesus is God and seems to suggest that He is the grounding of logic and reason. You see, logic is grounded in the essence of God. Therefore, when we choose to think and behave logically, we are godly (approximating to or being like God).

On a side note: it’s quite interesting to note that Critical Race Theorists reject logic and exclaim that “appealing to logic and reason is racist!” However, God commanded us to “be reasonable” in Isaiah 1:18 . . . so, I’m gonna stay reasonable and appeal to logic no matter what anyone might call me.

See, “The Great Commission Is Racist!” https://cutt.ly/IYPiwoC

Bottom line: if you were thinking that we should not place so much emphasis on logic, then – according to John – you are not putting enough emphasis on the nature of Jesus!

Jesus is “The Logic” – the only way to make sense of reality!

With that said, what does the Apostle Paul say about Jesus in Colossians 1:16 . . .

The Preeminence of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Wow! According to Paul, if one can say that the creation of the universe “flowed” (as it were) through one person of the Trinity, it would be through the Second Person of the Trinity – Jesus Christ Himself!

The Creator of the universe, entered into the universe, to save the people within the universe. How cool is that? With that in mind, let’s talk about HOW Jesus saved the people within the universe.

This is our last point about WHY Jesus is the ONLY WAY!

Reason #3: The atonement of Jesus just makes sense.

Why did Jesus have to die? Why is the wages of sin death? Why can’t the wages of sin be five bucks or seven years of hard labor?

Why did Jesus have to die?

Before addressing that all-important question, first understand two things: 1- who we are, and 2- who God is.

According to Westminster Confession, the objective purpose of mankind is to know and enjoy God. I like to “tweak” it ever so slightly, and state: The objective purpose of mankind is to grow in our knowledge of God, to grow in love with God, and to enjoy a personal relationship with our Creator for all eternity (Hosea 6:6; Luke 10:27; Col 1:9; 1 Tim 2:4).

Or to say it this way: You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose of enjoying a true love relationship with God into the eternal future.

Scores of humanity have considered the meaning and purpose of life. The fact remains, if God does not exist, then there is no objective purpose in life (Atheism Catch-22). Christians, however, do not suffer from this sort of conundrum. In fact, we have a ready answer. We know the objective meaning and purpose of life: God created every human to know, love, and enjoy God into the eternal future. This is why God created the universe and all of its contents. This is why you exist, so that you could know him. We were created on purpose and for that exact and specific purpose.

Like Oil & Water

By definition, God is a maximally great being and necessarily perfect in every way. Moreover, God created you to enjoy a perfect, holy, and pure love relationship with him.

But we’ve got a problem — a big problem! As a result of sin, now we as humans are anything but holy and pure. Now we are guilty, alienated, and corrupt in nature. Since we are corrupt and imperfect, we are unequally yoked with a maximally great being.

Like oil and water, now, we are “unmixable” with a perfect God. He is necessary perfection and we are infection. The two simply do not mix and that is a major problem for humanity.

So, humanity needs a savior. With a savior we can be justified instead of guilty, adopted instead of alienated, and have a purified and regenerated nature instead of a corrupt nature.

We were created for one objective purpose – to be the Bride of Christ (Eph 5:25-27) in a perfect and true love marriage. We were created to love and to be loved by our Creator. However, now, because of sin, we are infected and do not mix with necessary perfection any longer (i.e., oil and water). As a result, we are necessarily separated from God.

Our hearts were created to be “pointed” to God, but now they are dysfunctional, sick, and twisted because of this separation. Our hearts are now “curved in” on themselves, they are self-centered, selfish, and sinful. We have completely “missed the mark” (the objective purpose of human existence). This is literally what the word “sin” means in the original Greek. The “mark” is God, but we are separated from him; we do not even know God exists apart from his revelation. Due to this separation, we cannot even “aim” at God and of course we will “miss the mark” and sin.

We are infected, self-centered creatures – but we are not supposed to be. God created you for a specific purpose and gave you a job description: BE HOLY! (Namely by loving God and others.) Being holy means to be God focused instead of self-focused. The problem is, all of us have “missed the mark” and have become “infection.” Therefore, we have a damaged relationship with perfection – God.

Is Restoration Possible?

The question remains: how is a broken relationship restored? Two things must occur if a damaged relationship is to be restored: 1) The offended party must choose to bear the harm. 2) The offending party must choose to confess and repent. In our relationship with God, he is the offended party as we sinned against him. We are the offending party, and are thus powerless to restore this relationship on our own. Our works are meaningless unless God, as the offended party, chooses to bear the harm. Left to our own devices, our work does not work (Isaiah 64:6).

God is life! He is the author and giver of life. He invented it and life comes from him. In the well-known Bible verse, John 14:6, Jesus claims he is “the life.” If God is life, then separation from life is death. Since sin separates us from God (like oil and water), then, consequently, sin equals death. Therefore, in every aspect that you have life, you will die if you are separated from the source of life. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

If our relationship with God is to be restored, then God must bear the harm as the offended party. If the harm is death, then, God must die. One small problem though: it is logically impossible for a necessary being to die. God cannot die physically because he is immaterial and spirit. God cannot die spiritually because he cannot be separated from himself (although Jesus felt like it on the Cross).

You are a soul (an immaterial thinking thing) with one set of cognitive faculties. God is one soul with three sets of cognitive faculties. Just as your cognitive faculties cannot be separated from you as a spiritual substance (soul), God’s cognitive faculties (all three of them) cannot be separated from his “spiritual substance.”

If God is going to bear the harm, he has to die because the wages of sin is death. God cannot die as God. Therefore, if humans are to be saved, God had to become human so he could bear the harm and experience death. We need Christmas, we need Good Friday, and we need Easter to have a restored relationship with our Creator (Happy Holy-Days)!

Why do we need Easter (the Resurrection)? It took more than just executing Jesus, because if death was punishment, if Christ is still dead, then he is still being punished. The Resurrection is proof that God is satisfied with Jesus’ atoning work. Therefore, Christianity is true!

Remember, we were created on purpose and for the objective purpose to love God with our entire being. We see this demonstrated in multiple Bible verse such as Luke 10:27 and Matthew 22:37, we are to love God with all of our mind/soul, and body/strength.

The reason why you exist is to LOVE! You were created on purpose and for the specific purpose to love God . . . AND . . .  to love our neighbors (and even those who consider you to be an enemy as our very selves!

Taken together—love God and love others—comprises the WAY of Jesus. We’re talking this morning about why we believe in the TRUTH of Jesus. But He also says that He is the WAY to live… and this is His way: “Love God and love everyone!”

The purpose of life is all about LOVE!

To do anything other than that is to miss the mark (the very definition of sin).

If we ever choose not to love God in any way that we have life, then our lives ought to be terminated because we are objectively broken. This is an appropriate outcome. If something breaks, we either throw it away, or we fix it. Now, as far as our broken relationship with God goes, we have the choice to either be “thrown away” or to be “fixed.” Because of the work of Jesus (the Atonement) all people can be “fixed” and restored — as we ought to be in an objective sense — if we choose to be.

Justice is Good

Consider the nature of God to gain understanding of these issues. Psalm 97 states, “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of his throne.” This is not referring to God’s chair; rather, this is stating the essential attributes and the essence of God. This describes who God is! In other words, if God did not exist, there would be no such thing as objective righteousness, goodness, wickedness, or justice. God is perfect love (1 John 4:8). Thus, perfect justice must be part of his essential omni-benevolent nature as well. After all, justice is good and loving.

When someone escapes justice, we intuitively know that it is a bad thing. God created the universe, and part of the fabric of His creation is a moral universe. There are also natural laws, mathematical laws, and logical laws that govern the universe. Similarly, there are moral laws that we are obligated to obey (Paul says they are “written on our hearts” in Romans 2:15).

Perfect justice demands punishment, or it is not really justice. God cannot turn a blind-eye to our sin and say, “Oh well, boys will be boys, girls will be girls, humans will be humans.” That is not justice; it is injustice and ignoring crime and ignoring evil is bad. Therefore, God cannot ignore our sin and remain worthy of worship.

If a criminal commits a crime, we know that he deserves to be punished. We also know that the punishment should be fair and that it ought to fit the crime. If a seventeen-year-old shoplifts a pack of bubblegum from the gas station, there should be an appropriate punishment – we don’t give him the death penalty! However, moral monsters like Ted Bundy, Timothy McVeigh, and Osama bin Laden deserve a much greater punishment than the bubblegum burglar.

Now think about our crimes; we might not be a Ted Bundy, or a Hitler; however, we have all committed crimes against the very essence of morality, love, goodness, and justice – God! Because of this fact, we do not “mix” or relate with God. One may object and state that they are generally a “good person.” This may be true; however, they are not perfectly good, and cannot “mix” with a necessarily perfect God. Our lives are broken and infected, and therefore, we need a savior so that we can have a relationship with our creator. This brings us to Jesus; this brings us to the cross.

Conclusion

Some have falsely accused God the Father of some form of “cosmic child abuse” because he took out his wrath on his innocent son, because we sinful humans made him so angry. This is bad theology (remember the doctrine of the Trinity). We worship one God (not three); Christians are monotheists. Jesus is God. It logically follows that Jesus *is* the offended party. Therefore, Jesus, at the cross, satisfied his own righteous wrath – his own justice (which is good), for us! This is amazing love! This is amazing grace (the Cross was enough)!

Do you see the beauty? The offended party (a sinless, holy, pure, and morally perfect God) became human to pay our gruesome debt, to bear the harm, to satisfy his morally perfect justice. Wow! Because God has chosen to bear the harm, now, we have a choice to make. We can either choose to accept God’s act of love on the cross, or we can reject God’s grace and deal with his justice (separation from God and all that is good). Do you want perfect justice or perfect love? Perfect love is Heaven and perfect justice is separation from the Creator of the universe (Hell).

Because of what Jesus has done, we can have a restored relationship with our Creator. All you have to do, as the offending party, is freely choose to confess, repent, follow, and fall in love with Jesus. This is the essence of the message of the Gospel.

You see, we have THREE very good reasons to believe that Jesus is the only way to Heaven, just as He claimed to be.

  • God raised Jesus from the dead (a divine “stamp of approval”).
  • Jesus is the only way to God because Jesus IS God.
  • The atoning life, death, and resurrection just makes sense – no other religion or worldview offers anything similar.

Have you put your trust in Jesus? Do you love Jesus?

Pray . . .

Outro: What is black and while and SHOULD be READ all over? Your Bible!

Spend time in your Bible. That’s a great way to fall in love with Jesus.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3Gou2pR

 

/by
Biblical Judgment in a “Don’t Judge Me” World

Biblical Judgment in a “Don’t Judge Me” World

By Alisa Childers

“YOU SHOULDN’T JUDGE.”

Once upon a couple of years ago, there was a wildly popular book written by a self-professed Christian author. It was released by a Christian publishing house and marketed on Christian platforms and websites. It was a fairy tale come true. Crushing it at the top of The New York Times Best Seller list and winning the hearts and minds of millions of women, it was featured in countless small group Bible studies and conferences nationwide.

The only problem is that the core message of the book is the exact opposite of the biblical Gospel. So, I decided to write a little review of it and post it on my blog. I didn’t anticipate this “little review” going viral, nor did I predict the boatloads of hate mail that would sail into my inbox in the following weeks.

Some of the emails cannot be repeated in polite company. But the bulk of the pushback can be distilled down to three fateful words: “You. Shouldn’t. Judge.” 

The message I received loud and clear was that it was wrong of me to criticize unbiblical ideas in a popular book. After all, Jesus would never be such a “McJudgypants.” With love redefined to mean the affirmation of a desire or an idea, it’s easy to see how “judging” has become the unforgivable sin in our culture.

But Christians live by a different standard than the world. When someone says, “You shouldn’t judge,” they are actually contradicting real love, the Bible, and plain common sense. So, the next time someone pulls out this particular conversation-stopper, remember these three things:

SAYING “DON’T JUDGE” IS NOT BIBLICAL.

It seems like everyone’s favorite Bible verse (at least when they’re trying to keep someone from telling them they’re wrong) is Matthew 7:1. The words, “Judge not, that you be not judged,” come from the lips of Jesus himself.

Mic drop. End of conversation—right?

Well, that only works if you scribble out the next six verses, along with some other things Jesus said, and a good portion of the New Testament. In fact, just after saying, “Judge not,” Jesus lets his audience know that when they judge, they should be very careful to make sure their judgment isn’t hypocritical. “First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye,” Jesus instructs in verse five. In other words, don’t point out a sin in your sister’s life before you confront the bigger sin in your own.

But the whole point is to help your sister take the speck out of her eye, which requires you to judge that it’s there. So, Jesus isn’t saying that it’s always wrong to judge. In fact, verse six tells us to “not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs.” How can one identify “dogs” and “pigs” unless they first judge correctly?

JUDGE THE FRUIT

If there is still any confusion, just a few verses later, Jesus tells us to recognize wolves, or false teachers, by their fruit. Again, this requires us to judge whether or not these teachers are speaking truth or deception. Then, in John 7:24, Jesus couldn’t say it more plainly. He directs his listeners to “not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”

Later, in Matthew 18:15–16, Jesus gives instructions about how to confront a fellow believer if they’ve sinned against you. (Don’t forget to take the log out of your own eye first!) The apostle Paul echoes this sentiment in Galatians 6:1, by telling Christians how to handle a brother who is caught in a sin. He writes, “You who are spiritual”—think log-less in the eye—“should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.”

In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul tells the believers in Corinth that it’s actually their job to judge other believers. He writes, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?  God will judge those outside.”

Telling someone they shouldn’t judge is not biblical. In fact, Scripture actually commands us to judge, but to do it carefully, rightly, humbly, and without hypocrisy.

SAYING “DON’T JUDGE” IS NOT LOGICAL.

Imagine you are home alone and your doorbell rings. You peek through the window and observe a very large man with a gun in his hand, wearing an orange jumpsuit. He’s sweating and looking around nervously. Be honest. Are you going to open the door for him? My guess is … probably not. But wait. Why are you being so judgmental? Maybe he’s not an escaped convict but simply enjoys wearing orange jumpsuits and carrying his weapon while out for a jog. Who are you to judge?

Obviously, this is an extreme example. No one would open the door for that guy. But this goes to show that literally everyone judges. We all make judgments about people every single day. It would be beyond illogical, and sometimes unsafe, to not judge.

Plus, to even tell someone they shouldn’t judge is to judge that they are judging, which is considered judgmental, which requires making a judgment about all the judging. You get the point. But that whole logical mess can be avoided by simply taking Jesus’ advice to “judge with right judgment.”

SAYING “DON’T JUDGE” IS NOT LOVING.

When I was younger, I was trapped in a toxic cycle brought on by an eating disorder. One of my good friends, an eternal people-pleaser, worked up every last bit of courage she could muster to confront me. To put it lightly, it didn’t go well. I not-so-politely invited her to stop “judging” me and back all the way off.

Nevertheless, she persisted. Her determination to make sure I was not only helped but held accountable literally changed my life. I ended up confessing my secret and getting counseling as my healing began. To this day my eyes mist with tears when I think about how much she loved me to do such a difficult thing.

According to the Bible, love is patient and kind. It’s not arrogant or rude. 1 Corinthians 13:6 goes on to tell us that “love does not rejoice at wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.” My friend couldn’t rejoice at my wrongdoing. Had she simply ignored the “speck in my eye,” and chosen to not judge, my life could have gone down a very different path.

She judged me because she loved me. And it quite possibly saved my life. Judging with right judgment is not only biblical and logical, but it’s also the most loving thing you can do.

COURAGEOUS JUDGMENT

Culture will always have its slogans, mantras, and catch-phrases. But haven’t Christians always been countercultural? Sometimes Jesus calls us to judge each other. As difficult as it may seem, obeying his commands will keep you from being tossed about by the whims of a fickle culture. After all, that culture won’t be there for you when your life (or the lives of the people you love) falls apart from following its advice. Jesus will.

And that’s something you can rightly judge to be true.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp3 and Mp4

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3I7p96j

 

/by
Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 2)

Confronting Homosexuality in a Culture of Identity (Part 2)

,

By Josh Klein   

Previously, we looked at the dichotomy between what it means to declare homosexual activity a sin and how those who believe in Christian orthodoxy deal with it.  We addressed the current cultural movement’s roots and introduced the idea of identity into the argument.

It was necessary to do this so that we can have a strong foundation from which to build the following arguments.  We must first know why the liberal theologians seek to glorify homosexuality as an identity to understand why the interpretation of scripture has shifted from condemning obvious sinful behavior to condoning that very same behavior.

If you have not read part one you can do so by clicking here.

The goal of the believer should not be to convince the unbeliever of individual sins, such as homosexuality, but to seek to persuade, with the power of the Holy Spirit, that individual that they themselves are a sinner and in need of God’s saving grace.

But once this person becomes a believer, how does the conversation about homosexuality continue?  If they are encouraged to keep this identity in addition to their new identity in Christ we find we have created schizophrenic believers seeking to serve the master of being defined as a homosexual as well as a child of God.  This can be and is a miserable existence.

In parts two and three of this series, we will be looking at what liberal theology has sought to do to ease the pain of this transition, and in part four, I will look at offering a better way of dealing with this particular issue to those in line with Christian orthodoxy.

The liberal church has sought to assuage this tension by redefining, reinterpreting, and reengaging with scripture on the topic.

New theology is rarely good theology, and, in my opinion, such is the case in this instance.

The following are but a sampling of the arguments that are making the rounds on TikTok, Instagram, and in the liberal church concerning the LGBTQ+ movement (for the sake of length we will focus only on homosexual activity here).  These interpretations are based on a worldview of new tolerance, love, and empathy and are not only damaging to the culture but, and more importantly, are damaging to the Church and to the individuals being snowed under by such sleight of hand theological teaching.

I believe this is the kind of teaching Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 18:6 when he said, “6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

As we go through these arguments it is important to remember that, for the purposes of this article, we are having a discussion with supposed members of the same faith.  A different standard is to be used with those outside of the faith (1 Corinthians 5:12).

The exceptions to the historical view of homosexuality in the church come under the moniker of love and acceptance and the scholarship starts with this baseline.

I will be the first to admit that many more educated than myself will come to the studious understanding of homosexuality in scripture that disagrees with my own.  That said, I believe that their starting place is to find an exception where there is none.  And as the saying goes: If you look hard enough for something you will probably find it. They seem to start with the presupposition that if God is love then certainly, he would not allow those he loves to have such a miserable existence as to live with an identity that is hostile to their creator.

They could be partly right. Our identity as sinners is most assuredly offensive and deeply saddening to God.  He did do something about this though, he offered us a new identity in Christ rather than in Adam through Jesus’ death and resurrection on our behalf.

Perhaps now we understand why it is so paramount to understand our identity apart from sexuality to truly embrace the gospel.  Jesus does not promise to fix us completely during this life and even guarantees that we will have trouble (1 Cor. 13:10-12; John 16:33).  Simply put, this means that whatever identity we have apart from Christ must be sacrificed to be identified with and in Christ.

Liberal theology seeks to solve this problem by moving particular acts of sin to the realm of sacred and thus, to ratify the former identity as God-ordained.

The new theology of acceptance of sin does the trick of turning a thing defined as sin into something else entirely.  As we will see, it narrows the scope of sexual sin so that an interpretation of scripture that includes the sexually sinful act of homosexuality or promiscuity is considered too broad.

There are also many simply naïve arguments against the idea of homosexuality as a sin that are easily debunked and explained away with some simple study of the scriptures.  We will tackle the most technical objection first, and in next week’s treatment, we will move on to the rest as we close out this four-part series.

Note: When I am referring to homosexuality, I am speaking of the ACT, not the disposition or attraction.  I believe that attraction is not a sin in and of itself, but lustful thoughts and sexual activities associated with homosexuality and with heterosexuality (outside of marriage) are biblically defined as sinful activities.

The Greek word translated Homosexual should be translated Pedophile therefore the Bible does not speak against same-sex relationships in the original languages.

Let’s get technical.

This statement makes an argument on translative decisions without regard to the doctrine of sin historically.

There are a few words translated as homosexual in the NASB that could be translated to mean different things.  A new book that was set to be released in the summer of 2021 called Forging a Sacred Weapon: How the Bible Became Anti-Gay[1] makes the argument that a mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (along, presumably with the other passages in scripture that translate to homosexual) is what spurred an entire generation to puritanical homophobia.  There is even a documentary set to be released about the topic in late 2021.

These are likely the arguments that my friend has seen on TikTok.  The question then, should be asked, is homosexuality a sin and why would the word be translated differently in 1946 than it was before?

First, we will tackle the main scripture at hand in this new book.  1 Corinthians 6:9 says this:

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals”

Incidentally, this same word ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) is used in 1 Timothy 1:10 as well and seems to be a word coined by Paul himself to indicate a sexual relationship between two people of the same gender.

It is a compound Greek word that combines ἄρρην (arrēn), which means “male” or “man” and κοίτη (koy’-tay) which means bed and is often used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.  So, the word literally means two “men” that are “in bed.”

Commonly, prior to 1946, this term had been translated as Sodomite.  Those that wish to glorify homosexual intercourse as an acceptable activity for Christian believers to partake in read deeper into the word and believe that Paul is speaking of the significant and disgusting use of boy-love in the ancient Greek world.  It is no secret that many of the Greeks practiced pedophilia (child-love) with young boys as grooming processes for older men.

But this argument fails in multiple respects.  First, the argument indicates that the language around the word is transactional, and thus, the sexual act is clearly transactional as well (pointing to the temple prostitution of young men) but that is not the case.  The tenses are clearly behavioral, it is towards people engaging in voluntary acts of sex and/or worship. The second problem is that the assumption made that arrēn means boy is simply incorrect. παῖς (pais) is the word for boy, and the word from which we get pedophilia (literally: boy-love). Yes, in Revelation many translations insert the word “child” to clarify the meaning, but this is not inherit in the word.  For instance, Revelation 12:13 could (and possibly should) just as well be translated “he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male” without the word child inserted at the end.

The word that Paul coined in these two passages is correctly understood and has been understood throughout history, as a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex regardless of age.

Therefore, I am in favor of the translation reflecting the wide breadth of the word, rather than the narrow scope.  Is this passage condemning homosexual sex?  Yes.  Is it also condemning pedophilia? Yes.

Since Paul is coining the term, it seems he is seeking to create an umbrella for a sexual act that is deemed sinful by God. Many proponents of the pederasty theory indicate that Paul could have used a different term, the problem with this suggestion is twofold.  Both common Greek words for man are too generic to indicate what Paul was trying to get across. Anthropos and Anēr can both be used as generic terms for all people.  Arrēn, however, cannot be.

The other problem with this theory lies within the context of the Old Testament.  There is a “lost in translation” problem for many as they study the Old Testament and the New.  They think Paul would have been reading the Hebrew Old Testament.  And, he would have, but in his writings, Paul quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). This provides another hurdle for the pederasty theory.  In the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22, we find that the term used for male is arrēn and the term used for “lie with” is koitē. It is reasonable to deduce then, that Paul is putting these two words together as a direct result of their being used in the LXX (Greek OT) translation of Leviticus 18.  Which would indicate that Paul would believe his readers would be directed back to that passage.  And this makes sense seeing as Paul does not explain the newly coined word but believed that his readers would simply understand what he was referencing.

The problem remains though, how to best translate this word in English.

I believe a better translation to use in the situation is Sodomite or go completely concrete with “men have sex with males.”  The etymology of which stems from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis.  You likely know the story, but here is a summary: God is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their pride and arrogance and debased and evil culture.  He sends angels to investigate and Lot (Abraham’s nephew) saves them from being ravaged by the locals sexually, he even offered his own daughters to the men of the city (which, by the way, was NOT okay with God either, but I digress) in Genesis 19.

It is at this point that many take sodomy to mean anal rape, but it is not that simple.  While the original sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, the consequence of their original sin bore itself out in homosexuality and sexual depravity in general.  Sodomy, then, has commonly been seen throughout history as the sexual act done between two people of the same gender.

Sodomy is a much broader and harsher term than Homosexual, and I believe it gets better at the heart of what Paul is speaking to in his letters.

However, one of the things the author of the aforementioned book does is to redefine the word sodomy to mean “sex that is not used for procreative purposes.”  However, that has not been the general understanding of sodomy for generations.  In fact, currently, Britannica defines Sodomy in four ways – homosexuality, anal intercourse, bestiality, and pedophilia[2].

So, if the better translation of the word in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy would be Sodomite, would that indicate that homosexual behavior is deemed good in God’s eyes?  An objective observer would be forced to admit, in my opinion, that it would not, but that it would simply be one of a multitude of sexual behaviors that are deemed sinful according to the nature of God’s word.

The other issue that I have with this argument is that it completely leaves out Leviticus and Romans in consideration.  In fact, Romans 1:26-27 is possibly one of the clearest condemnations of homosexual sex in the New Testament.

This gets to the heart of Genesis 19 as well.  Many believe that the issue with Genesis 19 was not the homosexual sex, but the implied rape that would take place.  However, we find in Romans 1 that this is not entirely the case.

When a culture rejects God and refuses to worship him and him alone, he responds by giving them what they want – their depravity.  Romans 1:26-27 indicates that the culmination of the original sin of rejecting God and worshipping the created rather than the creator (I was born this way so it is holy and good could be seen as worshipping the created rather than the creator) comes with both men and women exchanging the created order of sexual relationship with the internal passion and desire for each other.  The word used for men in this passage is the same word Paul used to combine with a bed that is translated homosexual in current translations.

In one of his many great literary works C.S. Lewis says this, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it.”[3] I am not using this quote to posit that those that are homosexuals are going to Hell, but to bolster the viewpoint that Romans 1 clearly indicates that self-gratification is the line that leads to rebellion and destruction and homosexual behavior is part of this giving over of God.

This leads us next, to the more popular objections.  We will tackle those next week.  The reason we are spending two weeks on objections is this: It is important to establish what the truth really is in order to move forward with true compassion, grace, and mercy.  The same can be said for understanding any other sinful behavior in our lives.  While I will treat these objections academically, I want to take a moment at the end of this week’s article to acknowledge that academic arguments are one thing, and they are important, but dealing with people is something entirely different and of utmost importance.  That is why I seek to provide a better way at the end of this four-part series.  My goal is to treat the topic with tenderness, respect, and love, but to base all of this on the firm foundation of truth. Stay tuned next week for the final response to what seem to be the most popular objections to calling Homosexual activity a sin.

References

[1] http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/forging-a-sacred-weapon-how-the-bible-became-anti-gay/

[2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/sodomy

[3] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/16309-there-are-only-two-kinds-of-people-in-the-end

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Five Questions No One Ever Asks About Gay Rights (DVD Set), (Mp4 Download), and (Mp3 Set) by Dr. Frank Turek 

Correct, NOT Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone (Updated/Expanded) downloadable pdf, PowerPoint by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Josh Klein is a Pastor from Omaha, Nebraska with 12 years of ministry experience. He graduated with an MDiv in 2016 from Sioux Falls Seminary and spends his spare time reading and engaging with current and past theological and cultural issues. He has been married for 12 years to Sharalee Klein and they have three young children.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/uEKOQv2

 

/by
Who is the Leading Person of Interest?

Who is the Leading Person of Interest?

,

Why are murders so interesting to us?  Some of the most popular podcasts, videos, and news headlines are about high-profile homicides.  We are often consumed with the primary suspect the cops often call “the person of interest.”  Right now, the headlines are obsessed with Brian Laundrie?  Where is he?  Did he do it?  If so, why?  And will he get justice?

Unfortunately, over the long run, the person of interest is usually remembered much more than his victims. We remember names like Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and Ted Bundy, but we usually forget those they killed.

But what if there is one huge exception to that typical outcome?  What if the most remembered and influential name in human history isn’t a villain but actually a murder victim himself?

Cold-Case Homicide Detective J. Warner Wallace makes that exact case in his astonishing new book Person of Interest.  Wallace shows the unparalleled impact a murdered Jewish preacher from an obscure corner of the ancient 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, but he is also the central figure of influence throughout human history. In a book filled with over 400 of his own illuminating drawings, Wallace shows that even if every Bible and manuscript suddenly vanished from the planet, you could reconstruct the “explosive” appearance of Jesus and his essential teachings from the “fuse” of ancient history and the “fallout” of the past two thousand years.

Consider for a moment the impact Jesus had on literature. Jesus has been written about more than any other figure in history. To date, there are more than 109 million books written about Jesus (George Washington is a distant second at 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 on ancient manuscripts in the earliest centuries of the Common Era – more non-Christian than Christian – who describes Jesus and his followers. From these early voices, the entire story of Jesus can be reconstructed even if every New Testament manuscript had been destroyed.

Jesus dominates another form of literature: screenplays. Wallace assembles the movies crafted about Jesus of Nazareth in an illustration that demonstrates the unparalleled impact of Jesus on moviemakers (The Jesus Film, for example, remains the most translated and viewed movie of all time). But there’s more. Great thinkers and theologians have written about Jesus over the centuries, establishing a robust Christian publishing industry that thrives to this very day. Even non-Christians are compelled to allude to Jesus in one way or another. Christ figures—parallels to Jesus—populate not just classical literature but even popular fiction.

You’d have to destroy much more than the New Testament to erase Jesus from the world’s pages. You’d have to destroy much of the history of literature.

But that’s only one aspect of the “fallout” indebted to Jesus. 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 the role Jesus played in human history, Person of Interest uncovers the hidden evidence you might not have considered in the aspects of culture most revered by non-believers. The impact of Jesus has been seismic, and from His fingerprints in each area of human history, His story can be completely reconstructed.

How did a man who never led an army, never held an office, never started a company, never wrote a book, never had children, never travelled more than 200 miles from where he was born—a man who was murdered two thousand years ago—become the most important person of interest and the greatest influence in all human history?

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Person of Interest: Why Jesus Still Matters in a World that Rejects the Bible by J. Warner Wallace (Paperback), (Investigator’s Guide).

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Frank Turek is the president of CrossExamined.org and is the co-author of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist and the author of Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. On Twitter at @DrFrankTurek.

 

/by
Sí, Bart Ehrman, Jesús es Yahvé

Sí, Bart Ehrman, Jesús es Yahvé

Bart Ehrman is a professor of religious studies at UNC-Chapel Hill in North Carolina. He is well known for his best-selling books critiquing core tenets of evangelical Christianity and, in particular, the reliability of New Testament sources. Regular readers of my articles will already know that Ehrman is not the most careful scholar when it comes to his use of ancient sources. A few days ago, Ehrman posted two blog entries ( here and here ) on his website, claiming that the idea that Jesus is himself Yahweh is a recent doctrinal innovation, completely foreign to the New Testament and the early church. Ehrman even goes so far as to say that this is the view of only “some conservative evangelical Christians” and that “I have never even heard the claim (let alone a discussion of it) until very recently.” Furthermore, Ehrman adds,

I, frankly, had never heard of such a thing until six years ago. Maybe I wasn’t listening in Sunday school, or maybe I was sleeping through those particular lectures at Moody Bible Institute; or maybe… Nah, I don’t think so. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know. But I can’t think of any ancient Christian source that speaks of Jesus as Yahweh himself. Jesus is the son of Yahweh.

Ehrman claims that,

The first time I heard someone say with authority that Jesus was Yahweh and that this was standard Christian teaching was in a debate I had with Justin Bass in 2015 – you can listen to it on Youtube. I don’t remember at what point in the debate he said it, but he made some comment about Jesus being Yahweh, and I froze. I thought: theologians have never called Jesus Yahweh!

That a scholar of Ehrman’s stature would be misinformed about orthodox Christian teaching on such a fundamental issue is absolutely astonishing. In this article, I respond to Ehrman’s articles and show that he is profoundly mistaken about the teaching of the New Testament and the early church.

The first Christian theologians

Ehrman wonders “if there are early Christian theologians who hold this view.” Yes, there are many. For example, Justin Martyr (~100-165), in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, wrote [1] ,

…now you will permit me first to relate the prophecies, which I wish to do to prove that Christ is called both God and Lord of hosts…

I don’t know how one can be clearer than that. Irenaeus (~130-202) also states [2] ,

For I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam is called God or Lord in all things and absolutely. But that He Himself is in His own right, beyond all men who have ever lived, God, and Lord, and Eternal King, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, can be seen by all who have attained even a small portion of the truth.

Ignatius of Antioch (~50-108) also affirmed the full deity of Christ. For example, in his epistle to the Ephesians, he wrote [3] ,

We also have as our Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son and Word, before time, but who later also became man, from the virgin Mary.

I could go on quoting the early church fathers for quite a while, but this should suffice to show that the view that Jesus is Yahweh, the eternal God, is not a new idea but goes back to the early church. I will now turn to Ehrman’s comments on the New Testament.

Is the name Yahweh found in the New Testament?

Ehrman states that

Of course, the name Yahweh is not found in the NT at all, as it is a Hebrew word, and the NT is written in Greek. The NT does not give God a personal name.

This is obviously true since the New Testament was written in Greek, not Hebrew. However, the New Testament uses an equivalent word – in fact, the word that replaces the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH in the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. This word is κύριος, which is translated “Lord” in our English Bibles. It is of course true that this word had a broader range of meaning than simply denoting Yahweh (for example, Paul uses it of earthly masters – see Eph 6:5). However, the meaning of the Greek words, as intended by the original author, can be teased out by an examination of the context. For example, Hebrews 1:10-12 quotes Psalm 102:25-27:

“You, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, but you will remain. They will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a cloak, and they will be changed like a robe. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

Verse 10 uses the word κύριος, which is evidently (given the fact that the author is quoting an Old Testament Psalm concerning the Lord God) intended to denote Yahweh. What makes this text especially noteworthy for our purposes here is that the author of Hebrews applies the words of this Psalm to Jesus. In fact, this Hebrew scripture is one of several applied to Jesus in Hebrews 1, as the author compares and contrasts the exaltation of the Son with that of angelic beings.

To take another example, consider Paul’s quotation of Joel 2:32 in Romans 10:13: “For ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” Again, this alludes to an Old Testament text that refers to Yahweh. But Paul introduces this text only a few verses after having declared that “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom. 10:9). The implication here is that the κύριος of verse 9 is the same referent as in verse 13 – namely, Jesus. In other words, Jesus is the Yahweh of Joel 2:32, on whose name we are to call. This point is made even more explicitly by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:2: “To the church of God which is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours.” This text again clearly alludes to Joel 2:32, except that the Lord (κύριος) whom we are to call upon is none other than Jesus Christ.

Another example is found in 1 Peter 2:2-4:

“2 As newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow up in your salvation, 3 if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. 4 As you come to him, you are a living stone rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight…”

Verse 3 quotes Psalm 34:8 (“Oh, taste and see that the LORD [Yahweh] is good!”). However, verse 4 identifies the κύριος of Psalm 34:8 as none other than Jesus himself (the closest antecedent of the pronoun “he” in verse 4 is “the Lord” of verse 3). This implies that Jesus is the Yahweh of Psalm 34:8.

Another example is found in 1 Peter 3:14-15

“14 But even though you may suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Do not be afraid of them, nor be troubled, 15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy…”

It is true that there is some level of ambiguity about the original reading of verse 15, as most later manuscripts read θεόν (“God”) rather than Χριστόν (“Christ”). However, Bruce Metzger points out that [4] ,

The reading Χριστόν , however, is strongly supported by early and diversified external evidence… as well as by transcriptional probability, the more familiar expression ( κύριον τὸν θεόν ) substituting the less usual expression ( κύριον τὸν Χριστόν ). The omission of τὸν Χριστόν in the patristic treatise Promissionibus attributed to Quodvultdeus must be due to an accidental oversight of the translator or copyist.

If (as seems likely) the original reading is indeed “Christ the Lord,” then we have another example of an Old Testament text referring to Yahweh applied to Jesus. Compare 1 Peter 3:14-15, above, with Isaiah 8:12-13:

12 “Do not call all that this people call conspiracy a conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be afraid. 13 But you shall honor the LORD of hosts as a holy one.”

Isaiah 8:12 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:14. Isaiah 8:13 is quoted by 1 Peter 3:15, except that instead of calling his readers to honor the Lord of hosts as holy (as Isaiah did), Peter implores his readers to honor Christ the Lord as holy. Thus we have another case in which the title κύριος (which is correctly interpreted here as a substitute for the Hebrew tetragrammaton) is applied to Jesus.

I could continue along a similar line for a considerable time. However, I trust that this is enough to dispel Ehrman’s argument that the New Testament does not use the name Yahweh and therefore never calls Jesus Yahweh.

Does Psalm 110 rule out Jesus being Yahweh?

Ehrman continues,

When Christians wanted to find another divine being in the Old Testament to identify as Christ, they turned to passages like Psalm 110: “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.'” Based on what I said in my previous post, you can reconstruct who is speaking to whom here (note that the first LORD is capitalized and the second is not): “YHWH said to Adonai….”

Ehrman’s entire argument here implicitly presupposes Unitarianism. If the doctrine of the Trinity is true, then there is no problem with the persons within Yahweh’s being or essence being distinguished from one another and even participating in conversation with one another. Nor is there any problem with the Father exalting the Son, since the Son had willingly humbled himself through his incarnation and death on the cross. No Trinitarian identifies the Son with the Father. Rather, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each distinctive persons who together share fully in Yahweh’s essence, each possessing the divine attributes fully and completely.

Ehrman’s rendering of the words used in Psalm 110:1 is not entirely accurate, as it does not say “YHWH said to Adonai…” but rather “YHWH said to Adoni.” This difference may seem trivial (especially since these two words are distinguished only by a difference in Masoretic vowel pointing), but it is actually important. The title “Adonai” is used exclusively as a divine title (essentially as a synonym for YHWH). In fact, the ancient Hebrews, rather than pronouncing the divine name, would say “Adonai.” The word “Adoni,” by contrast, is simply the possessive form of the Hebrew word “Adon,” meaning “Lord” or “Master” (the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word κύριος). The word can be used to refer to Yahweh, depending on the context, but it is not reserved exclusively to Yahweh. The upshot of this is that, although many Christians have used this text to argue for a plurality of divine persons (and, indeed, for the deity of Christ), the reality is that any such argument based on this text is going to require more work and nuance than it often receives. I don’t think this text is as conclusive as the previous texts we’ve looked at. However, it is, I would argue, certainly suggestive, as we’ll see. The context sheds some light on the referent of verse 1. In verse 5-7 of Psalm 110, we read,

The Lord is at his right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. He will drink from a brook along the way, and so he will lift up his head on high.

In the Hebrew, verse 5 identifies the one sitting at Yahweh’s right hand as none other than Adonai, a word only used to refer to deity. Thus, Psalm 110 implies a plurality of divine persons within the Godhead. One possible response to this is that Psalm 110:5 is simply the inversion of Psalm 110:1. Just as David’s Lord sits at Yahweh’s right hand, so too Yahweh is at the right hand of David’s Lord. For example, in Psalm 109:31, Yahweh is at the right hand of the needy, and in Psalm 16:8, Yahweh is at the right hand of the psalmist David. The problem with this argument is that if one continues reading Psalm 110, it is clear that the “He”s in verses 5-7 all refer to Adonai, and in verse 7 this individual is said to drink from a stream, a human function. Thus, the individual sitting at the right hand of Yahweh in Psalm 110 appears to be a divine-human person.

Furthermore, Jesus himself argues that “David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” (Mark 12:37). What Jesus means is that none of David’s descendants could be greater than he. Therefore, he cannot refer to an ordinary human descendant of David. The question then arises as to what kind of Lord he could be referring to. But we can go even further. David’s Lord cannot be any human king either, since in Psalm 2:10-12 all kings must be subject to David, and Psalm 89:26-27 tells us that,

“I will appoint him [David] as my firstborn, the greatest of the kings of the earth”

Nor can He be a mere angelic creature, since angels serve God’s elect and are themselves servants (cf. Heb. 1:7, 14; Rev. 19:10 and 22:8-9). Who is left then? God.

The Angel of the Lord

Ehrman notes that Christians (such as Justin Martyr in the second century) have often identified the angel of Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible as a pre-incarnate manifestation of Christ. He writes,

I wonder if the confusion among some evangelicals about the Christian understanding of Christ (when they say He is Yahweh) is because the “Angel” of the LORD is so fully representative of YHWH Himself that He is sometimes called YHWH after He is clearly identified NOT as YHWH but as His angel. Why would He be called YHWH if He were YHWH’s messenger? It would be something like if a messenger from the king comes to you and orders you to do something, you tell your neighbors that the “king” told you to do something. Well, actually, His messenger did it, but he was so fully representative of the king that his words were the king’s words.

This interpretation, however, does not account for the fact that several people throughout the Hebrew Bible marvel at the fact that they have seen the angel of Yahweh and yet their lives are spared (people are not supposed to be able to see Yahweh and live – Exodus 33:20). For example, consider Jacob’s words after he wrestles with a man in Genesis 32, one who is identified in Hosea 12:4 as the angel of Yahweh: “Then Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, ‘For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life has been spared.'” Further support that the individual Jacob wrestled with was the angel of Yahweh comes from the parallelism between Genesis 32:29 and Judges 13:18, in which the man and the angel of Yahweh respectively say, upon being asked for their name, “Why do you ask my name?”

Another instance of this is in Judges 6, where we read of Gideon’s encounter with the angel of Yahweh. In verses 22-24, we read,

22 Then Gideon perceived that it was the angel of the LORD. And Gideon said, “Alas, LORD God! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.” 23 But the LORD said to him, “Peace be with you. Do not be afraid; you will not die.” 24 So Gideon built an altar there to the LORD and called it, “The LORD is Peace.” To this day it stands in Ophrah, which belongs to the Abiezrites.

Another example is found in Judges 13, which records the appearance of the angel of Yahweh to Manoah and his wife to announce the birth of Samson. In verse 21-22, we read,

21 The angel of the Lord no longer appeared to Manoah and his wife. Then Manoah knew that it was the angel of the Lord. 22 And Manoah said to his wife, “We are sure to die, because we have seen God . “

Thus, we see that numerous texts (and there are many I have not mentioned) attest to the deity of the angel of Yahweh. While Ehrman is correct in pointing out that many of these texts also distinguish the angel of Yahweh from God, this is quite consistent with a Trinitarian paradigm that sees God’s messenger as Yahweh and yet in another sense distinct from Yahweh.

Ehrman’s interpretation of the angel of the Lord passages also fails to explain the parallelism seen in Genesis 48:15-16, in which we read of Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons. He said,

15 “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has been my shepherd all my life long until this day, 16 the angel who has redeemed me from all evil, may he bless the boys…”

Here we see a poetic parallel in which the angel is identified with God. In fact, in the Hebrew, verse 16b uses the singular pronoun “let him bless the lads,” implying that the angel and God are one and the same.

I discuss the topic of the angel of the Lord in much more detail here and here .

The Carmen Christi

Ehrman then turns his attention to Christ’s poem in Philippians 2:5-11. He writes,

When Christ is exalted after his death, God gives him “the name that is above every name” for all creation to worship and confess. This is a reference to Isaiah 45 where Yahweh alone has the name above every name for all to worship and confess only him.

Possibly these modern Christians are thinking that Christ must therefore have been given the name YHWH, and therefore he *is* YHWH. But the passage does not seem to mean that. The supreme LORD of all, YHWH, is the one who *gives* Jesus the name that is above all others. It is worth noting that in this very passage, when God gives Jesus his “name,” it does not mean that he has made a name change for Jesus. On the contrary, the passage says that the name before which all will bow in worship and confession is *Jesus*! (not YHWH): “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess.” Jesus’ own name is exalted.

However, this is not the argument at all. I do not interpret the “name” in verse 9 to be a personal name. Rather, in my view, this is best understood as a reference to Christ’s reputation that he received as a consequence of his humiliation and death on the cross.

There are at least three mutually supporting arguments for the deity of Christ that can be adduced from this text. First, this text is primarily concerned with Christ’s humility, for “though he was in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (Phil. 2:6). This only makes sense if Christ is equal in status to God, for humility is not praised for not exalting oneself to a higher status than one is entitled to. If I refrain from overthrowing the monarchy and exalting myself as king, I should not be praised for my humility in restraining myself. The text is therefore best understood if Christ voluntarily stripped himself of the divine privilege that was rightfully his. This reading is also supported by the Greek. In fact, the construction is known as a double object-complement accusative. Daniel Wallace explains that [5] ,

A double accusative object complement is a construction in which one accusative is the direct object of the verb and the other accusative (whether noun, adjective, participle, or infinitive) complements the object in the sense that it predicates something about it.

In this case, the verb is οὐχ ἡγήσατο (“did not count”), the direct object is τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (“equality with God”), and the object complement is ἁρπαγμὸν (“a thing to be grasped”). Thus, the relationship between the direct object and the object complement is rather like an equality sign. In other words, Jesus did not consider equality with God to be a thing to be grasped (ἁρπαγμὸν). Furthermore, Roy Hoover has argued that it is actually an idiomatic expression, “referring to something already present and at one’s disposal.” The question… [is] whether or not one decides to exploit something” [6] Hoover observes that in all cases where this noun ἁρπαγμός is the complement of the object in a construction like this (where the verb is to consider or to see or to regard), it always means something like an exploitable advantage. Therefore, Hoover argues, one could reasonably translate this text to be saying that Christ did not regard equality with God as something to be taken advantage of .

A second consideration is that Paul uses the Greek word μορφῇ in verse 6 to describe Christ as having the form of God and uses this same word in verse 7 to describe Christ as taking the form of a servant. This implies that Christ was in the form of God in the same sense that He took upon Himself the form of a servant. Since Christ was literally a servant, “being born in the likeness of men” (v. 7b), it follows that Christ was also literally God.

Third, Ehrman rightly points out that verses 10-11 allude to Isaiah 45:23, in which we read, “To me [i.e., Yahweh] every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.” However, in the context of Philippians 2:10-11, every knee bows and every tongue swears allegiance to Jesus. Indeed, that is what it means to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (κύριος), which literally means master.

Conclusion

To conclude, contrary to Ehrman’s claims, the view that Jesus is Yahweh has been the orthodox Christian position for nearly two millennia, and is taught in the New Testament. Ehrman claims that the name Yahweh is never used in the New Testament and that therefore the New Testament authors could not have applied it to Jesus. However, the New Testament does use the equivalent Greek term κύριος. Although this word is also used to describe earthly masters, the word is often used to denote Yahweh when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, and often these texts are explicitly applied to the person of Jesus. Ehrman’s argument from the New Testament’s use of Psalm 110 presupposes a unitary paradigm. Although Ehrman argues that the angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible is only Yahweh’s agent who is invested with divine authority, this argument collapses on the basis of the various exclamations of surprise following an encounter with the angel of the Lord that one has survived despite having seen God face to face. Finally, Ehrman is mistaken regarding Philippians 2:5-11, which is best read as indicating that Christ willingly laid aside the divine privilege that was rightfully His to take the form of a servant.

Footnotes

[1] Justin Martyr, “Dialogue with Tryphon,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donalds. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 212.

[2] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenaeus Against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed., Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 449.

[3] Ignatius of Antioch, “Letter of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 449. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 52-200.

[4] Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 621-622.

[5] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 182.

[6] Roy W. Hoover, “The Harpagmos Enigma,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971).

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. Jonathan McLatchie is a Christian writer, international speaker, and debater. He holds a BS (Hons) in Forensic Biology, an M.Res in Evolutionary Biology, a second MS in Medical and Molecular Biosciences, and a PhD in Evolutionary Biology. He is currently an Adjunct Professor of Biology at Sattler College in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. McLatchie contributes to several apologetics websites and is the founder of the Apologetics Academy (Apologetics-Academy.org), a ministry that seeks to equip and train Christians to persuasively defend the faith through regular webinars, as well as to assist Christians struggling with doubt. Dr. McLatchie has participated in over thirty moderated debates around the world with representatives of atheism, Islam, and other alternative worldview perspectives. He has lectured internationally in Europe, North America and South Africa promoting an intelligent, thoughtful and evidence-based Christian faith.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/dWH1oIA

Translated by Yatniel Vega Garcia

Edited by Elenita Romero

 

/by
Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

Does Jesus Devastate An Old Earth?

,

By Luke Nix

Introduction

Science and faith issues are no doubt a hot topic of discussion when it comes to defending the truth of Christianity. Many Christians hold many different views about the timing and mechanism of God’s creative acts. Some views hold numerous details in common while others may hold only many details in common. It is the few differences here and there that cause much heat in this internal debate and cause unbelievers (and some Christians) to question the truth of the historic Christian faith as a whole. Today, I want to look at one of the more common distinctives between Christians who believe that the universe is young (6,000-10,000 years old) and those Christians who believe that the universe is ancient (~13.7 billion years old).

 

But before I get to the specific challenge, I need to set a foundation. First, I am an old earth creationist (OEC), so I will defend the latter of the two views above; however, I will not appeal to God’s actions (creation) today; rather I will limit my appeals to Scripture alone. Second, there are numerous areas of agreement among young and old earth creationists just within the doctrine of creation (not to mention the rest of the Christian worldview), and I feel that the differences, because of their ability to undermine the truth of the Christian worldview, tend to get more of the focus than the common ground. I have a list of more than forty areas of agreement in my article “What Do Young Earth and Old Earth Christians Agree Upon Regarding Origins?” to help Christians remember these area of unity and be more gracious in our discussions with each other. The primary two areas of agreement that are important for today’s topic are that both young- and old- earth creationists affirm biblical inerrancy and that Adam and Eve were historically the first humans. With those in place, here we go!

The Claim: Jesus Was A Young Earth Creationist

In Mark 10:6 Jesus teaches, “But from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Many young earth creationists (YEC) use this passage as a proof text that demonstrates that their interpretation of Genesis 1 is the interpretation that Jesus held (see this article from the YEC organization Answers In Genesis: Jesus Devastates An Old Earth). Young earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 144 hours and 168 hours after He created the universe. Old earth creationists believe that God created Adam and Eve between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. So, the YEC argument goes like this:

  1. Jesus taught that Adam and Eve were created at the beginning of creation of the universe.
  2. The YEC creation of Adam and Eve is closer to its date of creation of the universe than is the OEC creation of Adam and Eve to its date of creation of the universe.
  3. Therefore, Jesus was teaching the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1.

The Fatal Flaw

On the surface, the argument does seem legitimate and is certainly persuasive. I’m sure many have seen and some have used this argument, sometimes with a slightly different second premise, but the first premise and the conclusion are always the same. However, there is one fatal flaw to all these versions. “144 hours later” is not the same as “the beginning of creation of the universe,” and, to be fair, neither is 100,000 to 200,000 years later either. The first premise (the one premise that appears in all the versions of this argument) is simply false. The falsehood of the first premise is what logically undermines the conclusion. But is the defeat of the first premise really that cut-and-dried? Perhaps not. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy may have an allowance that permits the first premise to be true.

Finding The Proper Interpretation

A statement can be true but not complete in its precision, just like 3.14 or 3.14159 both accurately represent pi even though they have different levels of precision. A lack of precision does not necessarily undermine the truth of a claim, nor does a lack of precision necessarily undermine the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In the case of Mark 10:6, it is true; however, it is not explicitly precise. “The beginning of creation…’of what'” is where the debate on interpreting Mark 10:6 hinges. There are two ways to address this. First, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is, and second, let’s examine an argument for what the object of creation is not.

What Is Jesus Talking About?

When we read the passage, it is obvious that Jesus is describing the features of humans: “God created them male and female.” So, the specific portion of God’s creation that is in view is that of humans. Notice that there is the pronoun “them” in the passage as well. A pronoun must have an explicit or implicit antecedent. If we are to interpret Jesus’ words to mean “From the beginning of creation of humans God made them male and female,” we see that the antecedent (implied by Jesus’ words but explicit in the interpretation of Jesus’ words) matches that of the object of creation that Jesus is obviously referring to in the passage.

What Is Jesus NOT Talking About? 

But is there a way that the universe could be the object of creation yet Jesus be making a point about the creation of humans? The doctrine of biblical inerrancy certainly allows for truth without precision, so could the YEC simply say that Jesus was truthfully but imprecisely equating the time of the creation of man with the time of creation of the universe, making the object of the creation the universe? The answer is “no,” and here is why. It is generally recognized that there is a difference between “lack of precision” and “false.” This distinction is not always easy to identify, but in many cases, rules or methods can be used to identify the line. Back to my example of pi, the rules of rounding provides the boundary that logically judges that 3.15 is not a lack of precision but is a falsehood. In the case Mark 10:6, we can use the perspicuity of Scripture (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) to identify where the line of distinction precisely lies and can judge for us whether the proposed interpretation is a lack of precision or is a falsehood.

Genesis 1 clearly defines the location of the line of distinction for judgment. Genesis 1 places a hard line between “lack of precision” and “false” for any timing claim regarding the universe’s creation event at the beginning of the next “yom” (“day”). A lack of precision of another passage of scripture is permitted by Genesis 1 as long as the lack of precision is still within the boundary of the “yom” (“day”) of the creation of the universe. So, on the YEC view, “lack of precision” is biblically and doctrinally permitted if and only if the imprecise claim of Mark 10:6 falls within that first 24 hours. However, the claim is false if the lack of precision of timing is outside of the 24 hour window following the creation of the universe.

Genesis 1 states that Adam and Eve were created on Day 6. Since Day 6 falls outside that 24 hour window, claiming that the creation of Adam and Eve and the creation of the universe are imprecisely at the same time is outside the allowable limits of a lack of precision, thus it is outside the boundaries of an interpretation that is guided by biblical inerrancy and the perspicuity of Scripture. So, Genesis 1 judges that Mark 10:6 cannot be interpreted to mean “the beginning of creation of the universe” even with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy allowing for a lack of precision.

So, the interpretation of Mark 10:6 which includes the universe as the object of creation is false- not permitted as judged by the doctrine of biblical inerrancy via the perspicuity of Scripture. If anyone was to insist that the universe is the object of creation in Jesus’ statement, this would place them (YEC or OEC) in the position of denying not only the truth of biblical inerrancy but the use of biblical inerrancy in interpretation.

The Proper Interpretation Within the Bounds of Biblical Inerrancy and Genesis 1

We see that the object of creation cannot be the universe but rather is humans. When we understand “humans” as the antecedent of “them” and that it is the specific creation of which Jesus is describing both the beginning and features, the passage remains true, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has properly guided to our interpretation of Mark 10:6, and Genesis 1 has rightfully judged our interpretation of the passage.

A Vital Decision

However, with this proper interpretation, the YEC loses claim to this passage as a proof-text of their view and as a defeater of other views. They also lose it as a supporting premise of their argument(s), and they lose the claim that Jesus was a YEC. The young-earth creationist has a choice: they can either give up the idea that Jesus held and taught their view, or they can surrender biblical inerrancy.

It is important to understand the ramifications of each of these options. If a YEC were to surrender Jesus as an infallible authority who holds their particular doctrinal interpretation, that is not a big deal. Why? Because Jesus did not speak to every doctrinal issue while on earth, and just because He did not speak to it while on earth does not mean that it is not true (its truth may be able to be established another way- including with the rest of Scripture, which Jesus, being God, did inspire). However, if the YEC surrenders the inerrancy of Scripture, then they lose the reliability of the accounts of Jesus teaching anything while on earth or inspiring human authors to teach while He was not on earth…so none of Scripture can be used to argue for the truth of any doctrine. With the first option, what is lost has the possibility of being regained, but with the second option everything is lost and nothing is regained.

It Gets Progressively Worse – Threats to the Church

Insisting upon the YEC interpretation of Mark 10:6, undermines biblical inerrancy (without even appealing to raw scientific data recorded from God’s creation). Such a position is essentially the same as the position of Progressive Christianity. Insisting upon an interpretation of any passage of the Bible that logically implies the denial of biblical inerrancy opens the door wide to this heretical movement within the Church. If a Christian recognizes the problem described in this post with the YEC interpretation and use of Mark 10:6, this could play a vital role in their “deconstruction” (see the book “Another Gospel: A Lifelong Christian Seeks Truth In Response to Progressive Christianity” by Alisa Childers about Progressive Christianity) should they not also be presented the viable alternative described above. And their rejection of the Bible as a whole as being “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and their rejection of the historic Christian worldview will not be far behind.

Now, does this mean that Genesis is not history? No. Does it mean that the early chapters of Genesis are not to be interpreted literally? Not at all. Does this mean that we are taking man’s word over God’s word? Not a chance. These and several other common concerns are addressed in these posts:

Conclusion – The Implications for Evangelism

We’ve seen in this article that it is simply false that Jesus devastates the old-earth interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. Jesus did affirm the historicity of a literal Adam and Eve in Mark 10:6, but He did not say or imply anything about the time of their creation. The proper interpretation of Mark 10:6 has great apologetic significance. For when the correct interpretation of Mark 10:6 is recognized (Jesus did not teach that the universe is young, here), when unbelievers and Christians in the process of deconstruction test Jesus’ claims about creation against the revelations of creation, they cannot use Mark 10:6 as an excuse to say that Jesus’ claims about reality (including His claim to be God and the only way to the Father [John 14:6]) are false. Romans 1 remains true in its claim that the unbeliever is without excuse, even (or especially) when they look at the creation. Ultimately, if this passage is brought up as a defeater for Christianity, then we can simply demonstrate the misinterpretation, then get back to the evidence that answers the one question that the truth of the historic Christian worldview depends upon: Did The Historical Jesus Rise From The Dead? 

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Old is the Universe? (DVD), (Mp3), and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek 

God’s Crime Scene: Cold-Case…Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback), (Mp4 Download), and (DVD Set) by J. Warner Wallace

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design (mp4 Download Set) by J. Warner Wallace 

God’s Crime Scene: The Case for God’s Existence from the Appearance of Design in Biology DVD Set by J. Warner Wallace 

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/pWhiQ0P

 

/by
The Gospels Are Embarrassing for The Apostles

The Gospels Are Embarrassing for The Apostles

,

By Erik Manning

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

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

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

Marginal Jew

Those Faithless Disciples

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

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

The Disciples Were Slow 

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

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

The Disciples Were Rude

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

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

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

The Going Got Tough, The Disciples Ran

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Resurrection of the Son of God

Embarrassing Details In Acts

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

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

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

What Real Christian Propaganda Looks Like

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

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

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

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

Recommended resources related to the topic:

The New Testament: Too Embarrassing to Be False by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

Why We Know the New Testament Writers Told the Truth by Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3 and Mp4)

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/MQacEd6

 

/by
¿Puede la historia de Jesús seguir sorprendiéndote?

¿Puede la historia de Jesús seguir sorprendiéndote?

By Bob Perry

History shows that prudence and wisdom are rarely on the side of new ways of looking at Scripture. This is especially true of the “progressive” trend to remake Jesus in the image of postmodernism. So when I first heard about Tom Gilson’s new book, Too Good To Be False , I have to admit I was confused. Gilson is a solid Christian thinker, but the back cover of his book told me that “Christians who read it will encounter Jesus in new ways to worship him.” Had he gone over to the dark side? Ten pages in, my fears were allayed. It turns out that the story of Jesus can still surprise you. Gilson’s book is not a new interpretation of Jesus. It is a challenge to see old words with new eyes. And the picture he paints is astonishing.

Would you hire this guy?

Imagine that you receive a memo from someone you work with. Its purpose is to introduce a person he wants you to consider for a job opening you have in your office. In the memo, he describes the candidate as someone who never learns from experience, let alone from his own mistakes. In fact, he has never admitted to making a mistake. His leadership skills have not improved in the slightest. He shows no sign of character growth. When you ask him questions, he rarely gives you a straight answer. In his opinion, you can disagree with him, but that would make you wrong. And he orders those who work with him to do things his way without exception (51-52).

Would you hire him? Or would you ask yourself, “Who does this guy think he is?”

That’s Jesus like you’ve probably never thought of before.

Fail embarrassingly

The insights in Too Good To Be False aren’t based on rethinking Jesus’ doctrines or deity. Quite the opposite. They’re reminders that we’re all too accustomed to the populist Jesus we’ve been encouraged to befriend. When you focus on what he actually said and did, there’s no temptation to just slap Jesus on the shoulder and laugh. Instead, you’re overcome with an impulse to bow down before him and worship him—and he invites you into his circle of trust.

The real Jesus is a leader unlike any the world has ever seen. He speaks and acts with authority, confidence, and power. But he never abuses that power. He never even uses it for his own benefit. Instead, he directs that power toward loving others. He commands respect. And he is always the smartest person in the room.

The combination of these character traits describes a man who cannot be of this world. He is unlike anyone we have ever met or even heard of. And while it is tempting to say that makes him too good to be true, history tells us otherwise. The facts are more compelling. They make him too good to be false.

An innovative character

The character of Jesus is so outrageously superior that it demands an explanation. After all, he is the most memorable character ever created. And that might make it tempting to dismiss him as the figment of someone’s very fertile imagination. But you don’t have that option. To dismiss the Jesus of the Gospels in this way would be to subscribe to the most outrageous conspiracy theory in human history. A coordinated forgery made by multiple authors, all possessed by the same fanciful delusion. But it’s even worse than that.

According to skeptics, this Jesus story is one big version of the Telephone Game. It was invented, embellished, retold, and passed down through multiple narrators in various places. Yet somehow the legendary character created in this process turns out to be exactly the same everywhere. He lives on in all four Gospels (five if you add those invoking the “Q”). Somehow this messy mix “produced a miracle greater than the resurrection: the greatest story of all time, with the greatest character in all of literature, presenting a moral teaching that has changed for the better every civilization it has touched.” (133)

A miracle, no doubt.

Facing the skeptics

The usual skeptics won’t accept it, of course. But Tom Gilson has been taking on them and their ideas on his Thinking Christian blog since 2004. He’s heard all their arguments hundreds of times. So when it comes to handling objections to his thesis, he does so with style, grace, and simplicity. They’re all there—Dawkins, Spong, Aslan, Ehrman, Carrier, Price, Armstrong, Hitchens, and others—and Gilson acknowledges their points. But rather than trying to cut down every tree, he focuses on the forest. Jesus of Nazareth is a character no one could invent.

There are ways to respond to the details of the so-called “contradictions” of the Gospel. But some skeptics refuse to acknowledge them as simple differences of viewpoint. It is tempting to feel compelled to explain why Jesus did not speak out on today’s most burning moral and social issues. They do not care that, throughout history, the solution to every moral dilemma has been through the actions of Jesus’ followers. We have heard the bluster about how Jesus “became God” (Ehrman) or how he was just another repeated legend (Dawkins, Armstrong). We have even been told that he did not really exist (Carrier). None of these arguments get to the heart of the problem.

With all the corruption and shenanigans that go into passing on a made-up legend, how could the synoptic authors do it? How could they each arrive at the same Jesus the man-God when the Telephone Game had not had time to invent his deity before they wrote their Gospels?

The Jesus We Take For Granted

Jesus was a media influencer before that was cool. But what made him popular with those who knew him best also made him notorious among the political and religious leaders of his day. Nobody likes a guy who thinks he’s God incarnate. Those people need to be eliminated. But when those same people reappear a short time later, those who tried to eliminate them know they have a real problem on their hands.

It has only happened once.

Today, the most vehement opponents of Christianity still invoke his name. They do so in an attempt to expose the “hypocrisy” of modern Christians. But when they do so, they are agreeing with Tom Gilson. They even admire the only character in human history whom “no author, no poet, no playwright has devised… a character of perfect power and perfect love like Jesus” (126).

He is the standard by which all other characters are measured. Too loving to be a liar. Too convincing to be a lunatic. He leaves us with only one choice. And Too Good To Be False reminds us that it is a choice we have too often taken for granted.

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  

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and culture at truehorizon.org. He is a contributing writer to the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of experience in military and commercial flight. He holds a BS in Aerospace Engineering from the United States Naval Academy and an MS in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown children.

Original Blog: https://cutt.ly/eQpVJh3

Translated by Amber Porta

Edited by Daniela Checa Delgado 

 

/by
Resurrection Defense Series: Transformation of Eyewitnesses

Resurrection Defense Series: Transformation of Eyewitnesses

,

By Brian Chilton

One of the most fascinating historical aspects of Jesus’s resurrection is the transformation it brought to individuals who claimed to have experienced the risen Jesus. Interestingly, these experiences occurred so early that Richard Bauckham contends that the “earliest Christology was already in nuce the highest Christology. All that remained was to work through consistently what it could mean for Jesus to belong integrally to the unique identity of the one God.”[1] Of the minimal facts accepted, Gary Habermas notes that the four “core” facts accepted about Jesus consist of Jesus’s death by crucifixion, the experiences the disciples had which led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, the transformation of the disciples, and the conversion of Paul.[2] Thus, the transformation of the disciples occurred early in the history of the church and, thereby, holds tremendous value for the historical researcher. These experiences profoundly impacted the disciples’ theology—accepting that Jesus was now exalted to a “position of heavenly glory”[3]—and even emboldened them to the point that they were willing to die for what they knew to be true. The resurrection appearances of Jesus profoundly affected four men which will be the focus of this article.

Transformation of the Troubled Peter

While Peter was excited to see the risen Jesus to the point that he willingly jumped out of a boat and swam to shore just to see Jesus (John 21:7), he was dealing with his own inner turmoil. In the courtyard during Jesus’s trial, Peter had denied that he had known Jesus three times to a woman who served as the high priest’s maid (John 18:25-27). Jesus had already prognosticated Peter’s denial beforehand which led Peter to a time of great despair and agony (Luke 22:61). Peter must have thought that Jesus would never use him again for ministry. Why would Jesus ever trust him again? However, multiple pieces of evidence suggest that Jesus appeared to Peter privately (Mark 16:7; Luke 24:12; and 1 Cor. 15:5). Yet the story of Peter’s ministerial transformation comes from an encounter he had with the risen Jesus on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. While eating breakfast by a fire on the seashore, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved him (John 21:15-19). Peter acknowledged that he did. The risen Jesus reinstated Peter back into the ministry. After his encounter with Jesus on the coast—the third time that Jesus had met exclusively with the disciples after his resurrection—Peter never again denied that he knew Jesus. Rather, he boldly proclaimed Jesus up until the time that he died for Christ. Church tradition holds that he was crucified upside down at Rome in c. AD 64 because he did not feel worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus. This was documented by historian Eusebius of Caesarea[4] and Origen of Alexandria.

Transformation of the Skeptical Thomas

Thomas had followed Jesus from the very beginning of Jesus’s ministry. Oddly, he was not found with the disciples when Jesus first appeared to them (John 20:24-25). Where was Thomas when Jesus first appeared to the disciples? Had he given up on the ministry? Did he seek to reopen his old business, whatever that may have been? No one could not blame Thomas as he had just witnessed his leader crucified to a tree. His investment in Jesus died when Jesus’s corpse was placed in a tomb—or so he thought. Regardless of his activities, he doubted the validity of the disciples’ claim that Jesus had risen from the dead. Again, no one could blame Thomas for his skepticism. While different Jewish sects held divergent opinions concerning the Messiah, none of them anticipated that the Messiah would rise from the dead before the end of time. Additionally, dead people do not normally rise from the dead. Thomas was justified in his disbelief. However, everything changed when Thomas encountered the risen Jesus. Jesus challenged Thomas to place his fingers in the nail prints of his hands and to thrust his hand into Jesus’s side (John 20:27-29). Then, Jesus challenged Thomas by saying, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (John 20:29).

Thomas did not remain “doubting Thomas.” Rather, he became “believing Thomas.” According to tradition and the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, the church cast lots to see which part of the world each disciple would serve. Thomas’s lot would lead him to India. The disciple would encounter the kings of the region and would not have the best relationship with them. The wife of King Misdaeus converted to Christianity to the king’s disdain. The king’s wife disobeyed him and instead followed apostolic Christianity which enraged the king. Eventually, the king ordered Thomas’s execution in Madras, India. While not all the information about Thomas’s ministry in India can be verified, it does appear that there are good reasons to believe that Thomas died in some manner for his faith while in India.[5]

Transformation of the Envious James

“Envious James” is used for this section, but it is merely one possibility to describe why James did not believe in Jesus during his earthly ministry. The Gospels note that the brothers and sisters of Jesus did not initially believe in him (John 7:5). However, James later had a change of heart to the point that he served as the pastor of the Jerusalem Church. What happened? The 1 Corinthians 15 creed lists James as one of those who witnessed the risen Jesus. James’s life was radically transformed because of the resurrection. The Jewish historian Josephus records the later martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. He writes,

“Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others … and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.”[6]

Like Peter and Thomas, the resurrection transformed James to the point that he was willing to give his life for the Jesus that he previously spurned. The resurrection changed James’s negative connotations about Jesus into worship. Quite an extraordinary thing, don’t you think?

Transformation of the Adversary Paul

Paul’s transformation is the most popular of the four. Paul, otherwise known as Saul, was a persecutor of the church. He was a Pharisee of Pharisees, a disciple of the famed Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), and on track to become a member of the Sanhedrin. Yet Paul was dramatically changed on a road trip to Damascus. Paul had hoped to imprison or even murder the disciples of Jesus (Acts 9:1). He had written permission by the Jewish authorities to imprison any disciple of Jesus in Damascus and bring them back to Jerusalem for trial (Acts 9:2). As Paul made his march to Damascus, the risen Jesus appeared to Paul in a dazzling array of power. The risen Jesus inquired, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” (Acts 9:4). Jesus identified himself and instructed Paul to go into the city. From that moment, Paul became a disciple of Christ. The disciples were not overly keen on the idea of accepting Paul into their fold. They thought that Paul was staging a sabotage. But as the risen Jesus told Ananias, “This man is my chosen instrument to take my name to the Gentiles, kings, and Israelites” (Acts 9:15).

Paul would suffer for the cause of Christ as he endured many hardships throughout his lifetime. Nonetheless, he endured until the very end. Tradition holds that Paul was beheaded in Rome around the same time that Peter died by crucifixion. This is verified by Tertullian, implying that Paul was considered a martyr by the end of the second century at least in northern Africa.[7] In his seminal work, McDowell lists Paul’s death as “the highest possible probability”[8] and that the beheading of Paul is “more probable than not.”[9]

Conclusion

From the four individuals listed, it is evident that the resurrection of Jesus brought about a major transformation in the lives of those who encountered the risen Jesus. Furthermore, the loving compassion of Jesus is shown by the way he forgave Peter of his past indiscretions, his willingness to provide evidence to the skeptic, his willingness to bring in even those of his family who had hurt him in the past, and the powerful means by which he accepted even the repentance of his former enemies. The risen Jesus continues to transform lives even today. Only eternity will tell how many souls have been transformed by this mysterious, powerful, and loving Savior who continues to seek and save the lost.

Notes

[1] 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), 235.

[2] Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1996), 162.

[3] Larry W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, 3rd ed (London, UK: Bloomsbury, 2015), 93.

[4] Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History 5.3.1.

[5] Despite the difficulties surrounding the Thomas martyrdom tradition, McDowell argues that the martyrdom of Thomas is “more probable than not.” Sean McDowell, Fate of the Apostles: Examining the Martyrdom Accounts of the Closest Followers of Jesus (London, UK: Routledge, 2008), 173.

[6] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.200-203.

[7] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics 36.

[8] McDowell, The Fate of the Apostles, 113.

[9] Ibid., 114.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

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

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

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

The Footsteps of the Apostle Paul (mp4 Download), (DVD) by Dr. Frank Turek 

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com, the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast, the author of the Layman’s Manual on Christian Apologetics, and a Ph.D. Candidate of the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. 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 enrolled in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University and is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years. He currently serves as a clinical chaplain.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/mmfnj9C

 

/by
3 Apologetics Strategies from the Book of Acts

3 Apologetics Strategies from the Book of Acts

By Alisa Childers

​”Do you understand what you’re reading?“

This simple question is credited with carrying Christianity into Ethiopia. (1) Acts chapter 8 tells of Philip being led to the desert by an angel to meet an officer from the court of the Queen of Ethiopia. Philip finds him reading an Isaiah scroll containing prophecies about the Messiah. At this point, Philip could have walked up and boldly declared, “I have been sent to you today to proclaim the good news of Jesus the Messiah!” But he didn’t. He met this man right where he was at and asked a good question, which then led to an explanation of the gospel. This is apologetics at its best.

Apologetics is sometimes called “pre-evangelism” because it can help clear intellectual obstacles in the way of faith. The command to do apologetics is found in 1 Peter 3:15 which tells us to always be “prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.” The Greek word translated as “defense” is apologia, which is where we get our English word, “apologetics.” In the book of Acts, when the apostles did evangelism, they did apologetics.

They were constantly defending their faith—to religious leaders, political officers, secular philosophers, and average citizens. Here are 3 ways they used apologetics to defend their faith:

1. They defended the gospel, not themselves.

The apostles were no strangers to trials, councils, and prisons. In Acts 4, Peter and John were brought before the Jerusalem high council and were challenged to defend their right to preach the resurrection of Jesus. Peter wasn’t even one sentence into his defense when he began to proclaim the gospel. He didn’t spend his energy trying to clear his name, or avoid prison time—he preached the resurrection of Jesus to the very council that was questioning him.

This example was also followed by the martyr Stephen in chapters 6-7. Stephen was a Jewish Christian who was brought before the council and accused of blasphemy against Moses and God. In his famous speech, he addressed the council by recounting the history of the Jews, pointing out that God’s true prophets have always been rejected. He also stressed that God’s presence isn’t confined to one specific geographical area or temple.  On one level, Stephen answered the charges of blasphemy. But even more, he opened the door theologically for the church’s worldwide mission. It was a brilliant defense of the gospel. New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce commented on Stephen’s famous “defense”:

It is obviously not a speech for the defense in the forensic sense of the term. [It is] by no means calculated to secure an acquittal before the Sanhedrin. It is rather a defense of pure Christianity as God’s appointed way of worship. (2)

The great preacher Charles Spurgeon said this of Stephen:

We see him defending the faith against a synagogue of subtle philosophical deniers of the truth. Stephen the deacon became Stephen the preacher….he had a higher promotion yet—when he had thus become Stephen the wise apologist. (3)

When our faith is under fire, it can be tempting to become defensive. But we would be wise to follow the example of the apostles and defend the gospel, not ourselves.

2. They shared eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ resurrection, not their personal testimonies.

The personal testimonies of the apostles certainly intersected the eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection because they were the eyewitnesses. But their message was focused on Jesus, not themselves. In other words, when they shared the gospel, they didn’t talk about what Jesus did for them personally and then simply invite others to have a personal relationship with Him. They testified to the fact that He was crucified, buried, and resurrected, offering salvation to all who would repent and put their faith in Jesus the Messiah. This theme is consistent throughout the book of Acts.

Personal testimony can be a great way to build a relationship, but our testimonies should always point to something greater—the good news of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

3. They knew Scripture but sometimes didn’t use it right away.

The first Christians were Jews who were steeped in the Old Testament Scriptures. When Paul was converted in chapter 9, he immediately began preaching to the Jews in Damascus, “proving that Jesus was the Christ.” In chapter 13, he spoke in the synagogue in Antioch, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures to show the Jews that Jesus was the expected Messiah. In chapter 17, he went into the synagogue in Thessalonica and “reasoned with them from the Scriptures.”

Later in the same chapter, Paul was in Athens conversing with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. These philosophers wouldn’t have accepted the Jewish Old Testament as authoritative, so Paul used a different tactic to get to the gospel. Rather than appeal to the Scriptures, he mentioned their own religious altar with the inscription, “To the unknown god.” He then proceeded to introduce them to the God they didn’t yet know, even quoting their own respected philosophical thinkers.  He used this as a tactic to testify to the resurrection of Jesus.

This does not mean that the Scriptures were unimportant or ignored. It just means that sometimes we need to meet people where they are at and start from there.

Conclusion:

The apostles used apologetics creatively, adapting their method to the situation they were in. The common theme among these three methods is that the gospel was always the main point.  The apostles kept the focus of their evangelism on the resurrection of Jesus and the hope of saving faith in Him—and we should too!

Recommended resources related to the topic:

I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek 

Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)

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

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

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

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

 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alisa Childers is an American singer and songwriter, best known for being in the all-female Christian music group ZOEgirl. She has had a string of top ten radio singles, four studio releases, and received the Dove Award during her time with ZOEgirl. In later years, Alisa found her life-long faith deeply challenged when she started attending what would later identify as a Progressive Christian church. This challenge pushed Alisa toward Christian Apologetics. Today you can read, listen and watch Alisa’s work online as well as purchase her recently published book on Progressive Christianity titled Another Gospel.

Original Blog Source: https://cutt.ly/fmwkNU8

 

/by