Right off the bat, we can know that when someone is searching for the "historical Jesus" it is likely that they are not starting with the Bible. And yet, the best information that we have regarding Jesus' life and teachings is in the New Testament documents. As many skeptics have made it their investigation, often with the intent to discredit them as historically reliable, they have returned with an outspoken faith; William Albright, Sir William Ramsey and Frank Morison are just a few examples. Former atheist, Craig Keener, has argued that the Gospels are in fact biographical accounts and that as such, they should be considered historical. The New Testament documents find their selves closest to the actual events and they retain and ever growing manuscript authority that is quite remarkable. Yet, these documents are held under an unusual amount of skepticism.
Obviously, there lies at the crux of the matter regarding the historical Jesus, the issue of miracles. In a recent discussion regarding the resurrection testimonies, I asked one such skeptic, if he were to personally experience a flash of light and hear an Earth shaking voice say, "BELIEVE," causing his neighbors to come running out of their house yelling, "What was that?" Would he then believe? He, in turn, responded with a non-answer, saying that he did not know what he would do. Perhaps he was being honest, but more likely he was evading the question.
The particular gentleman in discussion is so skeptical that he actually rejected the agnostic, Bart Erhman's postition that the early followers of Jesus really did think that Jesus was resurrected. Erhman was quoted as saying,
“Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution” (Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium [Oxford: OUP, 2001], 231).
I noted, "I think it sufficient to say that you, not only deny the miraculous, but cannot even conceive of believing your own eyes and ears in such a case. It seems a bit disingenuous that you would challenge the testimony of another, when you would not even believe your own eyes and ears. That being the case, how is it that such a person could be capable of extracting any historical value from the texts referred to (1 Corinthians 15:1-8, in conjunction with Tacitus, Polycarp and Tertullian as early non-canonical sources)?"
I then asked, "Don't you think it might be just a little arrogant to dismiss the historicity of the Gospels, the Pauline epistles and Acts based on your own personal subjective experiences and presuppositional bias against the miraculous? How could such a contention hope to find a viable position against those who have witnessed the affirmative in regard to the miraculous?"
My conclusion is that "there is no logical reason to reject the New Testament biographical accounts, except for an extremely biased presuppositional attitude against miracles and the very existence of God."
Suggested Reading:
The Historical Jesus of the Gospels by Craig Keener,
The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright,
Jesus and the Eye Witness: The Gospels as Eye Witness Testimony by Richard Bauckham
Original Blog, Did Peter and Paul Die for Their Belief that Jesus Rose? by Dr. Clay Jones:
http://www.clayjones.net/2011/01/peter-and-paul-killed-for-proclaiming-jesus-rose/
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by C.S. Lewis
“‘Please, Aslan,’ said Lucy. ‘Before we go, will you tell us when we can come back to Narnia again? Please. And oh, do, do, do make it soon.’
‘Dearest,’ said Aslan very gently, ‘you and your brother will never come back to Narnia.’
‘Oh, Aslan!!’ said Edmund and Lucy both together in despairing voices.
‘You are too old, children,’ said Aslan, ‘and you must begin to come close to your own world now.’
‘It isn’t Narnia, you know,’ sobbed Lucy. “It’s you. We shan’t meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?’
‘But you shall meet me, dear one,’ said Aslan.
‘Are– are you there too, Sir?’ said Edmund.
‘I am,’ said Aslan. ‘But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.’”
–C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: The Chronicles of Narnia, Book 5 (New York: HarperCollins, 1952/1994), 540-541.
‘Dearest,’ said Aslan very gently, ‘you and your brother will never come back to Narnia.’
‘Oh, Aslan!!’ said Edmund and Lucy both together in despairing voices.
‘You are too old, children,’ said Aslan, ‘and you must begin to come close to your own world now.’
‘It isn’t Narnia, you know,’ sobbed Lucy. “It’s you. We shan’t meet you there. And how can we live, never meeting you?’
‘But you shall meet me, dear one,’ said Aslan.
‘Are– are you there too, Sir?’ said Edmund.
‘I am,’ said Aslan. ‘But there I have another name. You must learn to know me by that name. This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there.’”
–C.S. Lewis, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader: The Chronicles of Narnia, Book 5 (New York: HarperCollins, 1952/1994), 540-541.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Tony Blair vs. Christopher Hitchens
Atheist, Christopher Hitchens and former British prime minister Tony Blair duked it out Friday in a debate on whether religion is good or bad for the world.
First of all, if it were possible for God not to exist then that would mean that religion is a mere social convention, a product of evolution. If religion is a source of evil, then it only reflects human character; therefore Hitchen's argument is misfounded. His argument should be against humanity. The various secret societies and political parties involved in world affairs throughout the ages can attest to this, including the rise of Hitler. I don't know anything about the Catholic Church and it's reaction to AIDS, as was brought up by Hitchens, but I do know that it is Christians who are in Africa helping them. I also know that people continue to die in Africa from malaria, as the result of left-wing political activism.
I would also like to point out that prior to the advent of Jesus, it was the conqueror who was the hero of the day. Crucifixion was no glamorous tribute to have on one's epitaph. Sacrifice for name's sake was one thing, but when Jesus cried, "Father forgive them," he was speaking a foreign language. The end result however, is that the heroes of our day are not conquerors but those who sacrifice for the sake of others. Consequently, Hitchens is literally borrowing from the Christian worldview as he argues against the evil acts committed in the name of religion.
Ultimately, the problem with secular humanism (the atheist religion) is that it assumes that man is basically good, when in fact man is fallen in nature. The only hope for humanity is the redemption that is found in Jesus, the Christ. This is why most of us who claim the title Christian baulk at calling it religion. For those of us who have been changed, it is the very real power of God. No superstition, no religious tradition, rather, it is an encounter.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101127/religion-debate-pits-blair-against-hitchens/
First of all, if it were possible for God not to exist then that would mean that religion is a mere social convention, a product of evolution. If religion is a source of evil, then it only reflects human character; therefore Hitchen's argument is misfounded. His argument should be against humanity. The various secret societies and political parties involved in world affairs throughout the ages can attest to this, including the rise of Hitler. I don't know anything about the Catholic Church and it's reaction to AIDS, as was brought up by Hitchens, but I do know that it is Christians who are in Africa helping them. I also know that people continue to die in Africa from malaria, as the result of left-wing political activism.
I would also like to point out that prior to the advent of Jesus, it was the conqueror who was the hero of the day. Crucifixion was no glamorous tribute to have on one's epitaph. Sacrifice for name's sake was one thing, but when Jesus cried, "Father forgive them," he was speaking a foreign language. The end result however, is that the heroes of our day are not conquerors but those who sacrifice for the sake of others. Consequently, Hitchens is literally borrowing from the Christian worldview as he argues against the evil acts committed in the name of religion.
Ultimately, the problem with secular humanism (the atheist religion) is that it assumes that man is basically good, when in fact man is fallen in nature. The only hope for humanity is the redemption that is found in Jesus, the Christ. This is why most of us who claim the title Christian baulk at calling it religion. For those of us who have been changed, it is the very real power of God. No superstition, no religious tradition, rather, it is an encounter.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20101127/religion-debate-pits-blair-against-hitchens/
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Brains and Pop Cans
The following is an excerpt from Joe Boot's essay, "Broader Cultural and Philosophical Challenges."
It is important to note that reason and logic are components of a worldview, not a total synoptic view of reality. Consequently, intelligibility rests on the origin of logic and reasoning within that worldview, which skeptics either reduce to chance or admit they simply cannot tell us.…to form a logical argument to presuppose logic as an ultimate foundation is to use a piece of reasoning to validate the whole, which simply begs the question. Once again, faith is found to be indispensable to reason. We cannot prove, without God, that our minds convey any truth at all. The Christian proof itself is indirect by showing that the exclusion of the transcendent God is unintelligible and absurd as it destroys all meaning, collapsing all reality into pure metaphysics. Michael Robinson writes:
Joe Boot's essay, Broader Cultural and Philosophical Challenges, is included in Beyond Opinion, ..Ravi.. Zacharias, Author and General Editor, p. 170-171.
Michael Robinson, God Does Exist.
It is important to note that reason and logic are components of a worldview, not a total synoptic view of reality. Consequently, intelligibility rests on the origin of logic and reasoning within that worldview, which skeptics either reduce to chance or admit they simply cannot tell us.…to form a logical argument to presuppose logic as an ultimate foundation is to use a piece of reasoning to validate the whole, which simply begs the question. Once again, faith is found to be indispensable to reason. We cannot prove, without God, that our minds convey any truth at all. The Christian proof itself is indirect by showing that the exclusion of the transcendent God is unintelligible and absurd as it destroys all meaning, collapsing all reality into pure metaphysics. Michael Robinson writes:
If there is no God, we are just molecules in motion, and we have no sense and no mind; we are just the random firing of chemicals in the brain. If our minds are composed only of physical matter, then our thoughts are, as Douglas Wilson wittily quipped in his debate with atheist Dan Barker, just “brain gas.” …If our minds are just the result of chemical reactions, then in the debate over pop cans, God’s existence can rightly be settled by shaking the two pop cans simultaneously. Labeling one can “atheism” and the other “theism”; after shaking the cans, the one that fizzes the most wins the debate. If our minds are simply the fluctuations of proteins, neurotransmitters, and other brain biochemicals, then an intellectual debate is equivalent to the chemical reactions that occur when one shakes up a can of soda.
Joe Boot's essay, Broader Cultural and Philosophical Challenges, is included in Beyond Opinion, ..Ravi.. Zacharias, Author and General Editor, p. 170-171.
Michael Robinson, God Does Exist.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Thank a Veteran!
In memory of my Uncle John who lost his leg in WWII and my father who served at the conclusion of WWII, I wish to thank our military veterans who have served and devoted their time, risked their lives and sacrificed so much for the freedoms that we enjoy. My friend who is a military veteran, Rob Siedenburg, recently walked across the entire state of Illinois in recognition of and support for those who have served and who are currently serving in the armed forces. It was a privilege to join him at the VA hospital in Danville, Illinois, where a number of veteran's hearts were touched by his token of appreciation and solidarity. For more information, visit http://walkacrossillinois-rob.blogspot.com/.
The following quotation was taken from the flier that he handed out:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decay and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” -John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Thank a veteran!
The following quotation was taken from the flier that he handed out:
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decay and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” -John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
Thank a veteran!
Sunday, November 7, 2010
John Lennox Takes on Stephen Hawking
As Stephen Hawking recently made another splash in the news, putting his weight in with the anti-theistic cheering crowd, Dr. John Lennox examined the content of the dead-end argument, pointing out that he is certainly wrong. "
According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'"
John Lennox explains how Hawking makes a categorical error by confusing the "law" with the "agency." "...physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions."
In other words, it only brings us back to the original question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On Lennox's websight a very interesting post was made by Byrom, "Hawking is claiming that something can come into being from nothing (or worse that the universe can create itself). God, however, is not claimed to have had a beginning to his existence, nor created himself. God is eternal and uncaused."
Byrom continues, "With God, one simply commits oneself to X existing. With Hawking’s universe, one is committing to X not existing, but then creating itself (which would require it to exist before it existed - logically absurd)."
As an Oxford professor with three PhDs, John Lennox takes on the new atheists in his excellent book that I highly recommend, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" It would make a great gift for a college student or anyone else who might be experiencing pressure from the secular elite. In his book, he examines the numerous categorical errors that take place in "THE BIG DEBATE." Of course he had personal experience when he debated the infamous Richard Dawkins.
For the entire article by John Lennox: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/stephen_hawking_and_god/
According to Hawking, the laws of physics, not the will of God, provide the real explanation as to how life on Earth came into being. The Big Bang, he argues, was the inevitable consequence of these laws 'because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.'"
John Lennox explains how Hawking makes a categorical error by confusing the "law" with the "agency." "...physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions."
In other words, it only brings us back to the original question: Why is there something rather than nothing?
On Lennox's websight a very interesting post was made by Byrom, "Hawking is claiming that something can come into being from nothing (or worse that the universe can create itself). God, however, is not claimed to have had a beginning to his existence, nor created himself. God is eternal and uncaused."
Byrom continues, "With God, one simply commits oneself to X existing. With Hawking’s universe, one is committing to X not existing, but then creating itself (which would require it to exist before it existed - logically absurd)."
As an Oxford professor with three PhDs, John Lennox takes on the new atheists in his excellent book that I highly recommend, "God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?" It would make a great gift for a college student or anyone else who might be experiencing pressure from the secular elite. In his book, he examines the numerous categorical errors that take place in "THE BIG DEBATE." Of course he had personal experience when he debated the infamous Richard Dawkins.
For the entire article by John Lennox: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html
http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/stephen_hawking_and_god/
Friday, November 5, 2010
Dallas Willard on Natural Evolution
"Evolution, whether cosmic or biological, cannot — logically cannot! — be a theory of ultimate origins of existence or order, precisely because its operations always presuppose the prior existence of certain entities with specific potential behaviors, as well as of an environment of some specific kind that operates upon those entities in some specifically ordered (law-governed) fashion, to determine which ones are allowed to survive and reproduce. Let us quite generally state: any sort of evolution of order of any kind will always presuppose pre-existing order and pre-existing entities governed by it. It follows as a simple matter of logic that not all order evolved. Given the physical world — and however much of evolution it may or may not contain — there is or was some order in it which did not evolve. However it may have originated (if it originated), that order did not evolve, for it was the condition of any evolution at all occurring. We come here upon a logically insurpassable limit to what evolution, however it may be understood, can accomplish."
Special thanks to Apologetics 315 for posting this. http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/04/sunday-quote-dallas-willard-on.html
Special thanks to Apologetics 315 for posting this. http://apologetics315.blogspot.com/2009/04/sunday-quote-dallas-willard-on.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)