Skeptics Archives - Page 5 of 9

Tag Archive for: Skeptics

Why Most Doubts About God Are Emotional, Not Intellectual (Part I)

If we’re honest, we would all admit that we have doubts about God to some degree or another. I mean, on some level, it almost feels like human nature to resist fully trusting anything. We doubt ourselves, we doubt other people, and more than anything, we doubt God.

Doubt is normal. No matter who you are, you’re going to have doubts. Even biblical heroes such as Job, Abraham, David, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Thomas, and Paul had doubts about God. But for some reason, too many of us think that doubts should be avoided.

I think we get the idea that doubt is bad from a misapplication of Scripture. In Matthew 21:21, Jesus said we should pray without doubt, and incredible things will happen. So doubt must be bad, right? But the point Jesus is making is that faith is all or nothing. We either trust God, or we don’t; there is no in-between.

We can’t half-trust someone. I can trust a complete stranger to make my food at a restaurant, but I won’t leave my children with them. I doubt them in important things, but I can trust them with small things. That’s what Jesus was saying – that we must have faith like that of a mustard seed. He said, “it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree…” (Matthew 13:32)

It’s only by exploring and pressing into doubts that you can take the necessary small steps of faith. After all, if you only explored the things that made you feel comfortable, you would never need to trust God.

So doubts aren’t bad, and they aren’t a sin. They can actually be beneficial if we address them properly. But how do we know how to deal with doubts when they come? Because if you don’t know what to do with doubts, you’ll end up going back and forth between the latest trends and ideas.

In order to healthily and effectively deal with doubts, we must start by knowing where our doubts are coming from. Otherwise, we’ll try addressing them the wrong way without ever knowing the source.

3 Types of Doubt

In his book The Thomas Factor, Dr. Gary Habermas says there are three types of doubt: factual doubt, emotional doubt, and volitional doubt.

These categories are largely self-explanatory: Factual doubt is doubt caused by a lack of information or evidence, emotional doubt is doubt rooted in some sort of emotional pain and resulting distrust, and volitional doubt is basically an unwillingness to believe or to apply known truths. The first is a matter of the mind, the second is a matter of the heart, and the third is a matter of the will.

According to Dr. Habermas, most people doubt for emotional reasons, and only about 15% of doubts are factual. Because of this, doubts are almost never remedied by information alone. Sure, dealing with factual doubts is important, but there’s more than enough evidence to get you past those doubts. In other words, good answers are necessary, but not sufficient. They simply serve as the foundation for faith.

According to Habermas, emotional doubt is the most painful, but it’s the least serious. In fact, emotional doubt is the only doubt that comes with pain. Factual doubt and volitional doubt don’t hurt, but emotional doubt does. Emotional doubters know the facts; they just have a hard time believing them due to an emotional view of the facts. They might think it’s too good to be true, or they might obsess over all the “what if’s” that they ultimately can’t answer anyway.

When you have the facts of a situation, but you still struggle with doubt, there’s probably an emotional, anxious, or obsessive cause to those doubts.

Emotional doubters usually ask similar questions to factual doubters, but they ask for different reasons.

For example, they might both ask for evidence of the resurrection, but one is genuinely looking for facts they don’t have, and the other is asking because they’re really wondering if it could be possible to be wrong.

Habermas says that one common characteristic of emotional doubt is when a question starts with “What if…”. The person asking a question like that probably knows the evidence, but they often wonder things like, “What if we’re wrong?”

But you could turn that around and say, “Do you have any reason to think we’re wrong?” People with emotional doubt tend to have general “what if” questions without evidence behind it. Their doubt is painful.

They might say things like, “It would be horrible to be wrong.” They might have fears about Jesus saying He never knew them or that they might still go to hell even though they’re saved. They might also obsess over questions like, “How do I know if I love God?” and other questions that can’t be backed by evidence.

Dr. Habermas says emotional doubters might include people who keep getting saved because they doubt their salvation. They just “know” they’re not saved even though they believe the gospel. It’s an emotional response to the data.

Another example of emotional doubt might be someone who has no problem believing that God exists, but emotionally they can’t come to grips with why God would allow evil to come into their lives. They’ve seen the facts, and the facts make sense, but they let their emotions dictate what they’re willing to believe.

The emotional doubter might say, “But what about hell? What is it, and who goes there? And how can it exist with a loving God?” These are questions that go beyond available human knowledge and therefore require faith.

This type of person has moved past the intellectual stage of doubting and into emotional doubting. They see the world the way it is, they’ve heard the explanation of why it is that way, yet they don’t want to believe it because of their emotions and past pain.

Let’s look at a couple of ways to overcome this type of doubt on the next part of this mini-series of Why Most Doubts About God Are Emotional, Not Intellectual.

[This article was an adaptation from my book Grounded Faith for Practical People. You can download it for free at MikePTaylor.net]

The Death of Judas: A Hopeless Bible Contradiction?

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

Skeptics accuse Christians of not paying attention while they’re reading their Bible. If they didn’t rush through their daily devotional, they’d catch some obvious contradictions. One of the more famous of these contradictions is the two accounts of the death of Judas. Here’s Biblical scholar and critic Bart Ehrman:

“The two reports give different accounts of how Judas died. However mysterious it may be to say he fell headlong and burst open, at least that is not “hanging” oneself. And they are flat out contradictory on two other points: who purchased the field (the priests, as per Matthew, or Judas, as per Acts?) and why the field was called the field of blood (because it was purchased with blood money, as Matthew says, or because Judas bled all over it, as Acts says?”

Jesus, Interrupted p. 53

Ouch. Both of these accounts can’t be reconciled. Or can they?

Reading the Texts

Let’s read the passages for ourselves. Here’s Matthew’s account:

“Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.

But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, “It is not lawful to put them into the treasury since it is blood money.” So, they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore, that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.” –Matthew 27:3-8

And here’s Luke’s version:

“Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and falling headlong he burst open in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that the field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.” — Acts 1:18-19

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Noted New Testament Scholar I. Howard Marshall suggests the following solution:

Judas hanged himself (Matthew.), but the rope broke, and his body was ruptured by the fall (possibly after he was already dead and beginning to decompose).
What the priests bought with Judas’ money (Matt.) could be regarded as his purchase by their agency. (Acts)
The field bought by the priests (Matt.) was the one where Judas died. (Acts)

Now you might say that this scenario smacks of harmonization, but is it really all that implausible? Let’s think about it for a sec.

Dealing with Judas’ Death

Judging by the text, Matthew seems to focus on Judas’ suicide. Luke’s focus is on the final state of Judas’ body. According to Jewish laws and customs, the Jews would not have wanted to go near a dead body. (Numbers 19.11) This would be especially true when that dead body belonged to a traitor.

But how would someone who hanged himself have their guts burst out? This gruesome story doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Or does it? The Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology says:

“Between 3 and 7 days, ever-increasing pressure of the putrefying gases associated with colliquative changes in the soft tissues may lead to softening of the abnormal parietes resulting in bursting open the abdomen and thorax.”

P. 91

So, we actually do have some medical data that fits with what we read in Matthew and Luke. Someone eventually cutting Judas’ corpse down, or the rope giving out, would explain how his body would have burst on the ground. Therefore, Matthew and Luke aren’t contradictory; they’re better viewed as complimentary. Each account ties up a loose end of the other.

There are also cliffs that overlook the valley of Hinnom. Those cliffs could very well be the place where Judas hanged himself, and his dead body fell. Falling against the rocks, this could explain why he fell facedown.

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

Jewish law says that it was wrong for the priests to keep Judas’ blood money. (Numbers 35:31) Why then was it OK for them to buy a field with it? Luke’s story gives us a possible answer: it wasn’t. That’s why the priest bought the field in Judas’s name.

The priests were acting as intermediaries. Them purchasing the field in Judas’ name was as if Judas bought it himself. You might say this is special pleading, but we see this elsewhere throughout the Gospels. See for yourself:

Matthew 27:59-60 “And Joseph (of Arimathea) took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had cut in the rock. And he rolled a great stone to the entrance of the tomb and went away.”

Did Joseph, a rich man and a member of the Sanhedrin, bury Jesus himself? No, he had his servants do it.

Mark 15:15“So Pilate, wishing to satisfy the crowd, released for them Barabbas, and having scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”

Did Pilate, a Roman prefect, grab a whip and get himself bloody scourging Jesus by himself? Again, the answer is obviously no. He sent his soldiers to do it.

John 4:1-2“Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples)”

Here John says that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John but then stops to clarify that Jesus didn’t himself baptize; it was the disciples. This type of “representation” speech is also found in the alleged contradiction of the healing of the Roman Centurion’s servant, which I wrote about here.

Plus, the priests had the motivation to do this. It avoids the paper trail that ties them to buying a field with blood money. This would have been a ritual impurity for all the public to have seen.

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

You might say this is all conjecture. But it’s impossible to avoid conjecture if you want to suggest what may have happened. But a classical historian wouldn’t see these discrepancies and be troubled by them. We have a strong historical tradition of the death of Jesus’ betrayer. And we have an event associated with a specific field named. These differences don’t undermine their historical value.

Notice also that each Gospel writer’s account is consistent with their profession. As a tax collector, Matthew is interested in legal and financial details that are involved with Judas’ death. He’s the only gospel writer that talks about the thirty pieces of silver. Luke’s a physician. He gives us more of an autopsy report.

These accounts aren’t hopelessly contradictory. In fact, they complement each other quite nicely.

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

Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

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

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

Introduction:

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

Fact #1: the burial of Jesus following his crucifixion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologetics and a Different Kind of Persuasion

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Have you ever found yourself “in debate mode” while talking to a skeptical friend about Christianity? Perhaps this is because many of us have been equipped with apologetic content (arguments for God’s existence, the reliability of the Gospels, etc.) with less of a focus on an apologetic method for use in everyday conversations.

Sometimes, we can get so concerned about winning or making a certain point, that we lose the credibility that an ambassador of Christ should have. Others you don’t notice may be watching and listening to your conversation. If the exchange gets heated, some may be thinking, “I don’t care if Christianity is true if it’s not good.” So, is there a different kind of persuasion to employ?

At the Hendricks Center, Darrell Bock and I invited John Dickson, the Founding Director of the Centre for Public Christianity, to join us in discussing what persuasion and apologetics can look like when Christians function as cultural minorities in a society.

In this post, I share three quick tips I learned from his visit on how to use a different kind of persuasion in our apologetic encounters:

Give ’em pause
Have conversations, not debates
Show truth and goodness.

Give ’em Pause

Instead of walking into a conversation in “debate mode,” Christians should seek to persuade others by provoking two things: Reflection and a longing for the truth of the gospel. On an episode of the Table Podcast called “Keys to Effective Cultural Engagement,” Bock talked about what he calls “a different kind of persuasion.” He says:

My initial goal…is to get the person to pause and reflect. “Might there be another way to think about what we’re talking about?” with the hope that what I’m putting out on the table is something they can recognize the potential merit of, and then consider what is being said, because it’s different than what they’re used to hearing.

Instead of relying on a more forceful kind of attempt at persuasion, he suggests an approach that communicates something like, “What I’m putting out on the table for you is a helpful way to think about how humans should interact and live with one another…” He says, “There’s certain effectiveness of living that’s being represented. I want to give them pause so they’ll start to think.”

Dickson agrees. He explains how this applies not just in conversations, but even in televised public debate situations:

If I lose well in a debate or discussion with a journalist, but I’ve done it so well that I know that the audience is thinking, “That Christian guy was reasonable and level headed and pretty nice.” That commends the gospel. I don’t go around trying to lose, but I’m not so concerned about losing… losing well is sometimes a beautiful representation of the gospel for those looking on…

Richard Dawkins is doing us a favor in the long term because he is so extreme…If the average, thoughtful doubter thinks, “That’s not an approach I like. I thought the Christian did a little bit better there.” That is winning.

Have Conversations, not Debates

You probably won’t yourself defending the faith on TV or in a literal academic debate. But even in everyday conversations, other people may be watching you interact with someone who sees Christianity differently. How do you compose yourself? Rather than being consumed with winning the debate, let’s engage in a real conversation. Remind yourself, “I’m in a conversation, not a debate.” Bock elaborates:

The first rule is, “I’m engaged in a conversation versus a debate. I’m not trying to win anything. All that I’m trying to do is demonstrate what I hope is the reasonableness of what I believe in a way that will draw people in to consider what it is that’s being said…” I’m probably not going to convince the guy on the other side of the microphone but I’m interested in the person who’s trying to decide, “Which microphone am I going to believe?” and hopefully draw them in my direction as opposed to the direction of the person who I may be pitted against.

Show Truth and Goodness

Today, many people are wondering not if Christianity is true, but if Christianity is even good. They reason, “If it’s not good, then should I, why to care if it’s true?” Don’t forget that persuasion is always person-relative. While you may not be able to help someone consider the truth of a certain Christian truth claim, you may be able to show them by the tone of your conversation and the way you treat them that Christianity is good.

Dickson notes that this was the approach of C.S. Lewis:

Lewis came to believe that if he could convey the beauty of Christianity to people, it opens them up to the truth…He wanted to convey the beauty of ideas to allow people to open up to the possibility that they’re also true. To want it to be true is a step along the path to knowing it’s true…

He goes on to say:

The Greek word epikeia, which you find in Paul’s letters is translated as “gentleness,” but it really means “humanitarian regard,” that moderate, fair, just character. We trust…the good-hearted person more than anyone else on all topics.

The key to persuasion is if you are someone who is trustworthy, …that moves belief. Aristotle said this ethos is the primary part of persuasion because we believe those who we perceive to be credible and fair-minded far more easily than we do anyone else.

I agree. Our skeptical friends and neighbors are more likely to give Christianity a fresh hearing if we can, through our actions, show them that Christianity is good. I like how Dickson describes goodness as “morally credible, loving, generous, compassionate, humble—things that flow out of the gospel.” Sometimes, just getting someone to want that goodness, to long for that goodness, is a step in the right direction—even if they are not fully persuaded of its truth just yet. As Christian ambassadors, we need to help people see the beauty and goodness of Christianity, in addition to the truthfulness of its claims.

Reflection and Persuasion

I enjoyed putting this episode of the Table Podcast together and getting Bock and Dickson together to discuss a different kind of persuasion. These insights are applicable to both personal discussions and square public conversations. Rather than being primarily concerned about winning a debate, let’s focus on getting people to pause and reflect on the effectiveness of living God’s way. Yes, we should defend the faith with confidence. But let’s also be mindful of our demeanor and the way it affects those who may be watching and listening.

The next time you find yourself operating in “debate mode,” take a step back. Consider these tips and try using a different kind of persuasion.

Putting God on Trial

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

“I can’t believe in a God who would allow so much evil and suffering in the world.”

Have you encountered this challenge? Most anyone who has tried to defend the Christian worldview surely has. The person bringing this challenge will often claim to be atheist, but when you dig in a bit this challenger is more often someone who knows there is a creator but who is deeply offended by the world, and angry at the God who set all this – the carnage, the anguish, the pain – in motion.

In my last post, I restated the traditional Christian response to this problem of evil. God did not create the evil that surrounds us because evil is not a thing. Evil is a departure- a deviation- from the good which God did create, and which God defines. This answer serves a particular purpose: it shows that the Christian belief system is internally coherent. For if God did create evil, he could not be the God described in the Bible because an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving God could not be the creator of evil.

But, the atheist insists, even if I grant that God did not create evil, He created this universe and everything in it. Isn’t He, therefore, still responsible for all the evil that we see around us? In other words, if God isn’t guilty of the crime of actually creating evil, is He not still liable as an aider and abettor?

C.S. Lewis wrote about those who put God “in the dock.” It seems a natural human tendency to find fault with the way others have acted or decisions they have made. As a criminal prosecutor, I found that I would often slip into this kind of thinking too, silently building a case against God, accusing Him in my inner thoughts of not doing things the way He should have, the way I would have. The created order is filled with so much beauty, so much elegance, so much to admire and to be awed by….yet, we know that something is also very much amiss. Every beautiful thing God has created has been marred in some way. Out of every good in the world, there springs forth, weed-like, much that is bad, much that is evil. Why has God allowed this?

By satisfying the demands of logic, the traditional explanation of the nature of evil helps to make sense of our faith. But notice what it does not attempt to do: it does not seek to defend God, which is, in essence, what this challenge is asking us to take on. Nor does it provide an emotionally satisfying explanation to the one who is suffering, no easy answer to make it all quickly better.

What, then, can the Christian to say in response to this challenge?

Perhaps the answer should begin with the recognition that we need not – that indeed we cannot – defend God. Yes, God is responsible, ultimately. It is His creation, His universe, His set of rules to which both conform. For reasons that make sense to Him, He endowed us with free will, knowing that we would use it in inappropriate ways, in ways that displeased Him and would cause harm to others. True, this answer is not satisfying emotionally. It is instead a logical answer, and while logic has its place, we are not strictly logical beings. We feel, and when we experience evil, we suffer. As beings who love, we grieve when we see those whom we love suffer.

The challenger may argue that a God who allows suffering cannot be loving but is it not the case that suffering may serve a purpose. We grasp this intuitively: we know that hard work can often lead to much gain; we see that the cure of the physician or surgeon may at first be quite painful; we note the agony of labor that precedes the birth of a child. Everywhere in nature, we see the source of the expression “no pain, no gain.” We also know, at a more profound level, that none of this, neither the pain nor the glory, lasts forever. We are on the road to …somewhere…and there are indeed many obstacles, many pitfalls, along the way.

And yet, are we really in a place to put God on trial? With what arrogance would the pot stand in the well to accuse the potter of poor workmanship? How would the robot, constructed to complete a particular job, rightly complain that the tasks to which it is put are not just? That it should instead rule the world into which it was placed.

At present, we see through darkened and distorted lenses. Free will and suffering. These concepts will never make complete sense to us. But as the created and not the creator, perhaps all we can do is remember that they make sense to Him.

The Problem of Evil

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Al Serrato

One of the most common challenges to the Christian worldview is the problem of evil. We see evil all around us; we need to do little more than pick up a newspaper or watch the nightly news to have our sensibilities assaulted with countless acts of senseless violence and suffering. Many are man-made and some a product of an indifferent Mother Nature; whatever the source, at times, it feels as if the world is awash in wickedness.

How, the challenger entreats, can your good and loving God create such things? Why did he imbue man with such capacity for wickedness? The Christian responds that God did not create evil. No, they claim, evil is the product of man’s twisted free will. How well does this claim hold up?

The challenger seems to have logic on their side. Reduced to a simple syllogism, the challenge goes something like this: 1) God created all things; 2) evil is a thing; 3) therefore, God created evil. Though raised anew in every generation, the challenge itself is not new. In the 4^th century, St. Augustine tackled it, as did St. Thomas Aquinas centuries later. What we call evil, they explained, is in fact a deprivation of the good and is therefore not really a “thing” at all. Like the “hole” in a donut, it describes what is not there, what is missing. But this does not always satisfy the challenger. Often, they may counter: an all-powerful, all-loving God would not have allowed deprivations any more than he would have created evil.

This response seems to accept the difference between deprivation and a thing and confronts the believer with the same challenge: a good God would never have allowed such deprivations, such departures, from the good. But this challenge actually misses the point of the distinction that Augustine and Aquinas drew; through sloppy thinking, it continues to view evil as a thing, even though it adopts the language of deprivation.

Consider: what we see as evil, whether a thought or an act, can only be gauged if we first hold in our minds what the good would be. For example, using a knife to cut someone is evil when done by the assailant but not by the surgeon. Setting off an explosion is evil when used to harm others but not when used to carve out a tunnel. The knife and the cutting; the bomb and the blast – these may be “things’ in a manner of speaking, but any measure of evil in their use depends not on what they are, but on the extent to which their use deviated from God’s perfect will.

We know this intuitively. And because some of us are better at knowing God’s will than others, we may mistakenly call something evil when in truth it is not. For example, a law prohibiting abortions would be viewed as “evil” by those who believe that a woman has the right to choose; they would view the act of stopping a woman from aborting her unborn child to be a departure from the “good” of free choice. This, of course, would be wrong. It would not be evil at all, but instead good, because such a law would comport with, and not defy God’s will.

Those who reject Augustine’s approach will insist that these are examples of things – namely acts that are being done: stopping the woman by force of law, setting off the explosive, cutting into a person. They will insist that a good God would not have created them. This misunderstands the point: what constitutes evil is not the action or the thing, but the use to which it is put. God, as the infinite expression and definition of good, is by necessity the ultimate standard of what is good. Consequently, what we describe as evil is, in reality, a rough gauge of the extent to which the thought or act in question departs from God’s nature or will, or at least what we view that nature or will to be.

So, why does God allow evil? Because when he gave us free will, he meant for us to have, well, free will. The opposite of free will would be directed will. Whatever actions we took would be controlled, the way a robot’s or computer’s would be. In such a world, there would be no abortions, no stabbings, no hidden minefields. But such a world would not know freedom. God allows evil, even though he never created it, because if He does not allow us to depart from His perfect will, then free will would be an illusion.

Was Apollonius of Tyana a Jesus Parallel?

4. Is the NT True?, Jesus Christ, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

Bart Ehrman is the most popular skeptic in America today. Writing at super-sonic rates, his books seem to find their way on the New York Times Bestseller list about every other year. Because of his rapid output and wide popularity, his views are spreading like gangrene across the American landscape (and beyond).

Additionally, Ehrman is a professor of religion at UNC-Chapel Hill where he works to cripple the faith of every young Christian who enters his classroom. He shares one of his faith-crippling tactics in his book How Jesus Became God.

Ehrman tells the story of beginning his class by sharing this description of a famous man from the ancient world.

“Before he was born, his mother had a visitor from heaven who told her that her son would not be a mere mortal but in fact would be divine. His birth was accompanied by unusual divine signs in heaven. As an adult, he left his home to engage on an itinerant preaching ministry. He gathered a number of followers around him who became convinced that he was no ordinary human, but that he was the Son of God.

And he did miracles to confirm them in their beliefs: he could heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead. At the end of his life, he aroused opposition among the ruling authorities of Rome and was put on trial. But they could not kill his soul. He ascended to heaven and continues to live there till this day.

To prove that he lived on after leaving his earthly orb, he appeared again to at least one of his doubting followers, who became convinced that in fact, he remains with us even now. Later, some of his followers wrote books about him, and we can still read about him today.1

Ehrman, of course, wants everyone in his class to thinks he’s talking about Jesus. But alas, he reveals the shocking news that he wasn’t talking about Jesus at all. Instead, he’s referring to Apollonius of Tyana.

This revelation is intended to rattle whatever remaining faith his Christian students might have. For if he can demonstrate that Jesus’ story isn’t any different from Apollonius of Tyana, well then Jesus must not be the unique Son of God after all.

Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel

As demonstrated in the story above, skeptics think that if they can show parallels of Jesus from the ancient world, they can prove that Jesus was just one more in a long line of myth stories.

And Ehrman isn’t the only skeptic using this tactic. In fact, if you listen to debates on the historical Jesus, Apollonius of Tyana is mentioned far more than any other ancient “parallel.” In other words, Apollonius is the best parallel the skeptic has to offer.

So, should Christians be worried? Does Christianity crumble in light of Apollonius of Tyana? Was Apollonius even remotely similar to Jesus? No, no, and no. Allow me to elaborate.

The Problem of Dating

Apollonius supposedly lived between AD 15-96. That is, his life comes shortly after the life of Jesus. Yet the only source we have for his life comes from Philostratus in the third century (AD 225). In other words, there is virtual silence about this man for about 150 years prior to Philostratus’ work.

If Apolonnius had been a Jesus-like figure, how come nothing is said about him for such a long period of time?

Sources for Jesus, on the other hand, all date within the first century when eye-witnesses to his ministry would have still been around. The Gospels come about 30-50 years after his life, and Paul writes his letters even earlier (20-30 years after Jesus). Moreover, Paul quotes or references traditional material that predates his work by decades. All that to say, Jesus’ fame understandably spread shortly after his death and resurrection.

Yet we have crickets with respect to Apollonius. This is hard to believe if he truly was the Son of God who performed miracles and rose again from the dead.

The Problem of Motive

What did Jesus’ followers have to gain for spreading the message of Christianity? Ostracism at best, and death at worst. In other words, they had no motive (money, sex, or power) to make up these stories in a hostile environment. In the end, most of them faced severe persecution for their faith.

What about Philostratus? Well, it just so happens that he was paid by the empress Julia Domna to write a laudatory account of Apollonius’ life in order to improve Apollonius’ reputation amongst the Romans and diminish Jesus’ importance.

Living during a time when Christianity was spreading rapidly across the Roman Empire, the pagan empress needed to do something to restore cultic worship amongst the citizens. Funding this project seems to be her attempt to minimize Jesus’ fame.

Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles

Philostratus, though, couched miracle claims with phrases such as “it is reported that” or “some believe.” Case in point. Reporting on Apollonius of Tyana’s most famous miracle (raising a dead girl to life), Philostratus reports that the girl probably wasn’t dead at all, and even states that only some believed she was. He indicates that this girl had some kind of mist coming out of her mouth prior to Apollonius “healing” her.

The Gospels are nothing like this. They make no qualms about Jesus’ miraculous activity. Furthermore, non-Christian sources also indicate that Jesus was a miracle-worker.

The Problem of Historical Errors

The Gospels provide all kinds of evidence for their historical reliability. Non-Christian corroborating sources, eye-witness testimony, an understanding of local customs, and embarrassing material all suggest that these sources are trustworthy.

Since not many people will take the time to read through Philostratus’ five hundred page work on Apollonius, they will miss out on the fact that Philostratus made all sorts of historical errors — mostly anachronisms.

The blunders are so bad that historian H. C. Kee reports, “what Philostratus reports tells us a great deal about the author and his time — that is, at the turn of the third century — but provides no unassailable evidence about Apollonius and his epoch.”2

While Philostratus attempts to give us a biography, many scholars acknowledge that his work reads more like a romance novel. As Boyd and Eddy remark, “while few have gone so far as to reject a historical Apollonius altogether, most scholars are rather skeptical about the historicity of major aspects of the image offered by this one source written well over a century after the figure it depicts.”3

The Alleged Resurrection

Jesus’ resurrection is the single-most-important fact about Christianity. If he didn’t rise, Paul says, we’re still in our sins. Fortunately, Jesus did die and rise again as the Gospels report, and there’s ample evidence to back this up this claim.

But what about Apollonius of Tyana? Did he rise again as Ehrman suggests? Simply put, no he did not. The only hint in Philostratus’ work that gets remotely close to a resurrection is when one doubting disciple has a dream about the spirit of Apollonius after his death.

A Parallel? Really?

Scholars have systematically debunked every line from the Erhman quote above. At best, he’s misleading. At worst, he’s downright deceitful.

No heavenly messenger announced Apollonius’ birth and said he would be divine. That messenger actually came from Egypt and never said Apollonius would be divine. He wasn’t so much an itinerant preacher as he was a visitor of foreign sages. Furthermore, he took a vow of silence for several years as he began his journey. His miracles were dubious, and he wasn’t killed by Roman authorities. Nor did he rise from the dead and appear to his followers. And none of his followers wrote books about him either.

Be that as it may, what if Philostratus had reported exact parallels? What would that prove? For starters, Jesus predates Apollonius. So any parallel would be evidence against Apollonius of Tyana and not Jesus.

Additionally, even if these so-called parallels did exist, it wouldn’t do anything to diminish the historical Jesus.

Taking this line of thought, you could prove I’m a myth because of the parallels between my life and Bart Ehrman’s. Both of us went to Bible college and later seminary. We both write about the historical Jesus and teach others about the Bible. Both of us live in the Carolinas. We’re both white males. And on and on.

The point is you can find parallels anywhere. Many have shown parallels between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. Does that mean Kennedy was a legend? Absolutely not.

In the end, it’s not the parallels that matter, but the differences. So while the story of Apollonius of Tyana is interesting, it does nothing to disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ.

The Gospel Authors Knew Palestinian Geography

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

We’re told by skeptics that eye-witnesses didn’t write the Gospels. Not only that, they say the authors wrote from distant lands like Rome, Egypt, Asia Minor, or Greece. They merely heard the stories of Jesus from others who heard the stories of Jesus from others who heard the stories of Jesus — much like the game telephone.

And as so often happens in the game of telephone, the stories got mixed up along the way. So by the time the writers penned the Gospels, they had a distorted view of Jesus, and thus we can’t know what the real Jesus said or did. Or so the argument goes.

But is that really what happened? A little thought experiment might help us answer this question. Pretend you were given the task of writing a biography on a traveling woman from Bolivia named Carla. Yet you weren’t allowed to visit Bolivia. Furthermore, you couldn’t use the internet, encyclopedias, or maps for research. Your resources would be a couple of Americans who had never met Carla themselves but had heard stories about her travels.

As you undertake this project, how accurately do you think you could convey the geography and landscape of her travels? Would you really be able to give precise locations and distances? Would you know which towns had higher or lower elevations? How accurately could you describe the bodies of water she encountered? Chances are, you’d make a lot of mistakes with these details.

Well, as we think about these so-called authors from distant lands, they wouldn’t have had access to sources that could give them specific details of the Israeli landscape. So as they wrote their stories about Jesus, we would expect them to make lots of geographic blunders, much like your story on Carla. But this isn’t what we find.

Geography of Towns and Regions

The Gospel writers display an incredible familiarity with Palestinian geography. And they don’t just get most of the geography right; they get it all right. This would be truly remarkable if they lived in faraway regions and had only heard of Jesus through secondary sources. But it would be expected for eye-witnesses who followed Jesus from town to town.

Consider this list of towns the Gospel writers mention:1

In total, the Gospel authors list twenty-six different towns. Some are prominent like Jerusalem, while others are obscure like Cana.

Not only do the Gospels include towns, they reference general regions as well. Consider this list:2

In total, the Gospels list thirteen different regions. Compare these lists with some of the apocryphal Gospels, which give us almost no geographical details.

The Gospel of Thomas, for example, mentions Judaea once and no other locations. The Gospel of Judas doesn’t even list a single location, and The Gospel of Philip names just Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Jordan.

Of course, the lack of geographical detail is to be expected in these apocryphal works. After all, non-eye-witnesses wrote them from distant regions some 150 years after Jesus. Naturally, people would have heard of Jerusalem (the capital of Israel), Nazareth (Jesus’ hometown), and Jordan (the river where Jesus was baptized). One wouldn’t need to be an eye-witness to have knowledge of these regions. But Cana, Bethany, and Salim? One would have to have special knowledge to know about these places.

Geography of Bodies of Water

Since the writers had an in-depth knowledge of the towns and regions, it should come as no surprise to learn they also knew about the bodies of water. Consider this list:3

It’s interesting to note the numerous references to “the Sea” of Galilee. For a body of water that’s a mere thirteen miles long, it’s odd that an Egyptian or Roman author would call it “the sea.” For them, the Mediterranean qualifies as a sea, not this tiny body of water that’s less than 1/300th the size of Lake Michigan.

Yet we would expect Galilean fishermen — who spent their entire careers on the body of water — to call it “the sea.” What’s even more interesting is that while the three Jewish authors of the Gospels refer to it as “the sea,” the one non-Jewish author (Luke) does not. Instead, he refers to it as “the lake” (Lk. 5:1, 2; 8:22, 23, 33). This makes sense because from a broader gentile perspective, “lake” was a more accurate description.

The authors also know that Bethsaida and Capernaum are close by the Sea of Galilee and that you can go directly from the Sea of Galilee into the hill country. Furthermore, John knew of a small stream called the Kidron and of two pools in Jerusalem. One pool he describes as having five colonnades, which has been verified by archeological evidence. Again, all of these details would be quite remarkable coming from non-eye-witnesses in distant regions.

Geography of Roads

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells the story of a man “going down” from Jerusalem (750 meters above sea level) to Jericho (250 meters below sea level). This was a descent of approximately one kilometer. The writer knew enough to know both Jerusalem and Jericho’s elevations. In fact, all four Gospels describe people “going up” to Jerusalem and “going down” as they left Jerusalem.

In John 2 and 4, leaving Cana (200 meters above sea level) for Capernaum (200 meters below sea level) is described as “going down.” Similarly, Luke describes the travel from Nazareth (350 meters above sea level) to Capernaum (200 meters below sea level) as “going down.”

More impressively, the authors knew the location of a tiny village called Chorazin. In Luke 10:13-15, Jesus chides Chorazin along with Bethsaida and Capernaum for their lack of belief. According to New Testament scholar Peter Williams,

The little-known village of Chorazin is, in fact, on the road to Bethsaida and just a couple of miles north of Capernaum. As far as we know, there was not a single literary source that could have provided this information to a Gospel author.4

The authors also knew that multiple routes existed between Judaea and Galilee — one to avoid Samaria and one right through it. Furthermore, they knew it was short travel from the small villages of Bethany and Bethphage to Jerusalem.

Who Could Know All These Geographical Details?

How could one get all of these obscure details correct? If it’s as the skeptics say, and non-eye-witnesses wrote these accounts from distant places, they got extremely lucky. A more reasonable conclusion, however, is that the writers received detailed information from eye-witnesses or were eye-witnesses themselves. As Peter Williams concludes,

No known sources hold together the particular set of information they (Gospel writers) have, and besides, we would have to suppose that they undertook a level of literary research quite unparalleled in ancient history. If these pieces of information result from hearing, then the reports they heard must have been fairly precise — concerned with stories not merely for their message but also for specific details. Thus it seems that the authors received the information either from their experience or from detailed hearing.5

*For more on this topic, check out Peter Williams’ book Can We Trust the Gospels?

Ambassador at Work – Faith, Vocation, and Apologetics

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Mikel Del Rosario

How do people see you at work? I’ve been thinking about the relationship of your vocational work to spiritual conversations, especially as I reflect on collaborative events I’ve participated in over years, like the National Faith and Work Association Meeting. And here’s the thing: Our apologetic arguments aren’t heard in a vacuum. They’re wrapped in a special packaging called “your life.” In other words, our spiritual conversations are heard in the context of our who we are at work.

Think about it: We spend most of our time at work. And that’s where most of us interact with people who see Christianity differently. Each week, you have the opportunity to break down emotional barriers to the Gospel by the way you work and the way you treat people at work.

In this post, I’ll share two ways your time at work can begin to break down barriers to spiritual conversations with people you see the most. First, your work provides opportunities for building relationships. Second, your job provides opportunities to love your neighbors.

Real Relationships

Building relationships with your co-workers and clients is a great way to break down emotional barriers to spiritual conversations. Part of earning the right to be heard includes doing good work in our vocation. Again, our spiritual conversations, apologetic arguments, and evangelism don’t take place in a vacuum. They are wrapped up in the kind of person you are in the workplace. Walt Larimore, who wrote Workplace Grace along with Bill Peel, says:

“People tend to not want to hear what you say if you are sloppy at work.”

But it’s a lot more than job performance that counts. It’s how you treat people, too.

Neighborly Love

Honoring God with our life includes viewing our work as a ministry—a service to both God and neighbor. This goes beyond the things that we might do outside of our work responsibilities. Although praying for people or leading bible studies after office hours may honor God, we shouldn’t forget that our daily, professional work itself is also a part of our service to the Lord. I like how Greg Forster says that work is “how we serve our neighbors in our everyday activities,” and it “is one of the main ways we reflect the character of Christ” (Theology That Works, 10).

Both competence and character are important traits of a Christian ambassador at work. It’s no surprise that thoughtful acts of kindness—like sharing the recognition for corporate victories with our staff or verbally appreciating our coworkers for their contributions—can play an important part in representing the Gospel. The Lord is pleased by Christian ambassadors who do good, honest work while obeying the Second Greatest Commandant: to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Loving your neighbor often paves the way for open spiritual conversations. In a video series on Workplace Grace, Bill Peel explains:

“When actions and words go together in showing appreciation and respect and honor of the value in another person, that speaks volumes. Obviously, if a person doesn’t feel valued by us they’re not going to value what you believe or what you say.”

So, when someone realizes that we have their best in mind, they may find it easier to open the door to honest conversations about some of the most important things in life. As ambassadors, we must begin to develop a biblical perspective on our work. One of the results of doing so is a better witness for Christ at our places of employment.

At the end of the day, our spiritual conversations are always heard in the context of our lives, including our lives at work. As Christian ambassadors, we need to see the value God sees in our work and the opportunities he’s has placed for us to represent Him well in our places of employment.

Take this week to intentionally build relationships with your coworkers, supervisors, customers, and clients, genuinely loving them through your work. By God’s grace, these simple acts of kindness can help open the door to spiritual conversations and even break down emotional barriers to the Gospel.

Mikel Del Rosario helps Christians explain their faith with courage and compassion. He is a doctoral student in the New Testament department at Dallas Theological Seminary. Mikel teaches Christian Apologetics and World Religion at William Jessup University. He is the author of Accessible Apologetics and has published over 20 journal articles on apologetics and cultural engagement with his mentor, Dr. Darrell Bock. Mikel holds an M.A. in Christian Apologetics with highest honors from Biola University and a Master of Theology (Th.M) from Dallas Theological Seminary, where he serves as Cultural Engagement Manager at the Hendricks Center and a host of the Table Podcast. Visit his Web site at ApologeticsGuy.com.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/35ver66

October 23, 2019/by Guest

There are two kinds of skeptics. Jesus demonstrated how to deal with both types

The two kinds of skeptics and how to deal with both

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Erik Manning

We can gain knowledge about the subject of Christian apologetics until our eyes bug out of our heads. But knowing how to apply that information in our everyday lives is another animal. And a big part of learning effective communication is knowing our audience.

I’m old enough to remember those cheezy WWJD bracelets from the ’90s. I’m sure they decorated the wrist of many a Newsboys concert-goer. They do raise a good question that we’ll apply here. What did Jesus do when faced with doubters? Let’s look at a couple of examples:

The open-minded doubter – John the Baptist

Yes, even a spiritual stalwart like John the Baptist went through a period of doubt in his life. Despite being a prophet who emphatically preached that Jesus was the coming Messiah, John went through a crisis of faith near the end of his life.

We read in Matthew 3 that John confidently believed he was God’s messenger in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. (Isaiah 40:3) He said that he wasn’t worthy to even carry Jesus’ sandals and that Jesus would be Israel’s divine judge. He saw the Spirit of God descend on Jesus and heard the voice that Jesus was God’s divine Son. (Matthew 3:12-16)

But then things went south after he confronted Herod for marrying his brother’s wife. Herod imprisoned John, and John sent a few of his disciples out to Jesus with the question, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?”

Apparently, being locked up in a dungeon for speaking truth to power shook him up. Maybe he was expecting Jesus to set up the Kingdom of God a little more quickly and spring him from the pokey. John started to question his calling, and if what he was giving his life for was real.

Jesus replied, “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor. Blessed is anyone who does not stumble on account of me.” (Matthew 11:2-6)

Jesus pointed to the miracles as evidence of him being the Messiah. He was also referring to Isaiah 35:4-6 and Isaiah 61:1, showing that he was fulfilling the Messianic prophecy to tighten the case. Jesus started preaching after John was imprisoned (Mark 1:14) so he might not have been fully aware of Jesus’ miracles.

Furthermore, as John’s disciples were leaving but still within an earshot, Jesus went on to say that John was a great prophet and the messenger of the covenant that Malachi prophesied about. (Matthew 11:7-12, Malachi 3:1) This was just the kind of shot in the arm that John needed. Notice that Jesus didn’t slam John for having a question or tell him to have blind faith; instead, he gave evidence. Jesus then talked about how great John was to the crowd, many of whom were probably baptized by John.

Jesus exemplified the command of Jude “have mercy on those who doubt” (Jude 23). As Christians, it’s vital we recognize who around us is going through doubt but are still open and humble enough to receive from us. John wanted to believe but was struggling. We need to see the ‘why’ behind some doubter’s questions and give them the ammo they need to persevere.

The Hostile Crowd – Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Says he wants evidence, but…

The religious experts were entrenched in their belief that Jesus was a false teacher. In the very next chapter in Matthew, they demanded that he would demonstrate a miraculous sign as evidence. Jesus didn’t mince words with them. Let’s take a look at Matthew 12:38-42:

“He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.”

It’s interesting to note that Jonah didn’t perform any miracles. The Ninevites didn’t have the evidence that Jesus was providing. The Pharisees and Sadducees were well aware already that Jesus was healing the sick. They could interview eyewitnesses. They even saw him cast out demons and said he did it by the power of Beelzebub! (Matthew 12:24)

But in the case of Ninevah, they did respond to evidence. They instinctively knew that they were breaking God’s moral law and needed to repent, that’s why they listened to Jonah. So the men of Ninevah would rise up and condemn them because they responded to the ‘lesser’ evidence – the moral facts written on their heart and their own conscience convicting them.
(Romans 2:14-15)

Jesus next gives the example of the Queen of the South as someone who would rise up and judge them for their disbelief. Think about it for a second. You have this queen, deep in Africa, hearing about a wise king in Israel who knew God. For days she traveled thousands of miles (no cars or planes back then) just to seek out his wisdom. She said, “The report I heard in my own country about your achievements and your wisdom is true. But I did not believe these things until I came and saw with my own eyes. Indeed, not even half was told me.” (1 Kings 10:6)

So she didn’t believe it at first, but because she valued truth and wisdom enough, she went to great lengths to at least check it out. By contrast, these Pharisees who stood in the presence of the miracle-working Jesus and said, like the famous skeptic Bertrand Russell, “not enough evidence, God!”. Jesus refused to give them more evidence and pointed to the fact that there are those who had less evidence responded correctly because of their hearts.

What do we learn from Jesus about responding to doubters?

We need to not only be ready to give a reason for why we believe what we believe, but we need to be able to read our audience. For those who saw the importance and were open to believing, Jesus took a merciful approach and gave them more info.

For the crowd that demanded that eyewitness testimony wasn’t enough, Jesus wasn’t having it. He told them that others have responded with lesser-but-sufficient evidence and that they didn’t have any excuse. The Ninevites just had Jonah’s preaching and their own consciences. The Queen of Sheba just had someone’s word for it and decided it was well worth looking into, even at great expense.

Jesus saw through their fake inquisitiveness and looked at the heart behind the question. The takeaway here is this, and don’t miss this: Don’t waste your time with the rude and bombastic skeptic! Don’t feed the trolls! It doesn’t mean you can’t respond to them for the sake of those who might be listening, but it’s also OK to call them out on the attitude of their heart.

I like to ask these types of skeptics what kind of evidence would convince them. Often the response I’ve received is that “Jesus would have to personally appear to me” or “God would have to write my name in the sky.” Well, OK, then. That’s not a person I’m going to be able to help much. That’s a double standard that they don’t apply to anything else. They get onto airplanes, buy computers, cars, and homes with far less evidence.

In a podcast, Christian apologist William Lane Craig addresses this sort of hypocrisy:

“I’ve noticed this with people in the free thought community. They have a sort of skeptical dial that they can ratchet way up when it comes to Christian beliefs so that almost nothing could provide sufficient evidence for these, but when it comes to their own worldview and commitments they dial it way down so that they don’t need to provide virtually any justification for their own beliefs in order for these to be rational. That, of course, is just hypocrisy. That is self-serving. If they are going to extol the virtues of doubt with respect to religious beliefs, they need to also extol those same virtues with regard to their own atheistic beliefs.”

So again: Have mercy on the Christian having doubts. Help the skeptic who is beginning to doubt their doubts. But for the convinced and rudely aggressive skeptic, don’t cast your pearls before swine. (Matthew 7:6) They’re hypocrites, and we know that Jesus called out hypocrites. Love them, pray for them, but if they’re going to be unreasonable, be kind but firm. And then move on to people who aren’t so prejudiced.

Tag Archive for: Skeptics

3 Types of Doubt

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Reading the Texts

One Proposed Solution from A Scholar

Dealing with Judas’ Death

But What About the Field Bought by The Priests?

The Death of Judas: Not A Hopeless Bible Contradiction.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Introduction:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

A Different Kind of Persuasion

Give ’em Pause

Have Conversations, not Debates

Show Truth and Goodness

Reflection and Persuasion

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Apollonius of Tyana — The Skeptics’ Best Parallel

The Problem of Dating

The Problem of Motive

Philostratus Was Skeptical of Apollonius’ Miracles

The Problem of Historical Errors

The Alleged Resurrection

A Parallel? Really?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Geography of Towns and Regions

Geography of Bodies of Water

Geography of Roads

Who Could Know All These Geographical Details?

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Real Relationships

Neighborly Love

The open-minded doubter – John the Baptist

The Hostile Crowd – Jesus and the Pharisees and Sadducees.

What do we learn from Jesus about responding to doubters?

Recommended resources related to the topic: