Student Apologist

Question #8:How do we explain the fact Jesus has never appeared to you?

2012-02-02T17:57:00.000-08:00

I have been responding to a popular YouTube video called 10 Questions That Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer. I have answered question 9 and question 10 in previous posts. In this post I will respond to question 8 which is "How do you explain the fact Jesus has never appeared to you?" The person speaking in the video says that "Jesus is all-powerful and timeless but if you pray for Jesus to appear nothing happens. You have to create a weird rationalization to deal with this discrepancy". While the person on the video spends very little time on this question, literally only saying that which I've quoted, he seems to think what he has said is enough to make an intelligent person question Christianity.

Before I respond with a few comments I would first ask the questioner, Why should I expect Jesus to appear to me? How does Jesus not appearing to me suggest that he is not all powerful and timeless? What misconception do you have about Christianity that leads you to believe that if Jesus could appear to me he would?

I hesitate to take this any further because one shouldn't assume what the questioner's intentions were with such vague comments made on the video. However, the odds of the person on the video ever seeing my blog and reading this blog post are very slim, so for those who may be reading this blog I want to make a few comments that may be helpful in thinking through some of the things this kind of question may have been alluding to.

I have to assume that the question is based on two major assumptions. 1. That if Jesus actually appeared to people they would certainly believe and 2. That Jesus is helplessly trying everything he can to get people to believe in him and that's why it only makes sense that if he were all-powerful and timeless that he would show up to every individual if he prayed.

I'll discuss them in order. It's a faulty assumption to think that if Jesus appeared to people today that all of those people would believe and that others would believe because of it. To think such a thing strongly underestimates the influence of the leading materialist paradigm in our culture. Even if Jesus did decide to appear, people would find a way to explain it away. They would accuse those claiming to have seen Jesus as having had hallucinations, it is after all the number one way they try to explain the appearances recorded in 1 Corinthians 15, or some other kind of mental disorder. Those who saw Jesus could claim they were ill or having a dream.

We see an example of what I'm describing above in Matthew 12:22-24. Jesus has just healed a demon-oppressed man and the Pharisees claimed that he did it by Beelzebul, the prince of demons. It is a misconception that people do not follow Jesus because of a lack of evidence. Romans 1:18-23 makes it clear that we do not reject God for a lack of evidence, we reject God because we love sin. It is only by God's grace that one can be saved. Jesus never said he would appear to us in every generation, nor is there any assurance that if he did, people would automatically repent and believe.

The second possibility that I brought up that the questioner may be implying is that Jesus is desperately trying to save everybody and so it only make sense that if he were all-powerful and timeless he would appear to us so that we could believe. I've already rejected the second part of that assertion above, but this idea that Jesus is desperately trying to save people but his hands are tied and he constantly fails is a horrible misunderstanding of the Jesus of scripture.

John records Jesus as saying, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. For I have come form Heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day." (John 6:37-40) Jesus is not weak, Jesus is not desperate. Jesus is obedient to the Father and will raise up those who were given to him, on the last day.

As we've seen from the previous questions and some of the ones I will respond to in the future, it doesn't seem the person who made this video has carefully thought about Christianity and they certainly do not have a very good understanding of what Christianity actually believes and teaches. Nevertheless, as a sophomore in college who had not carefully thought through his faith, this video cause some angst, and that is why I have taken the time and will continue to take the time to respond to this.

God bless!

Question #9: Why Would Jesus Want You To Eat His Body and Drink His Blood?

2011-12-27T17:49:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since my last post, but now that the semester is over and Christmas has passed I want to get back into the swing of things and get back to answering the "10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer". I have posted the video above for those who are not familiar with the video and I have already responded to Question #10 (here) in a previous post.

So, with that being said let us move on to Question #9 "Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?" Before I begin to actually answer the question being asked it is interesting how the person in the video asks the questions. It is almost as if he tries to strip the questions of their religious context in an attempt to make the actions sound really strange. In his mentioning of this question he makes no mention of the Lord's Supper or communion or any of the various views that Christians have held over time. I do not mean this to be disrespectful in any way, but the person on the video opens the video by commenting on how these questions are for intelligent Christians, however these do not come off as intelligent questions! That being said do to the popularity of the video on the internet the video should still be addressed.

The narrator of the video asks Question #9 and then says, "It sounds totally grotesque, doesn't it? Why would an all-powerful God want you to do something that, in any other context, sounds like a disgusting, cannibalistic, satanic ritual?" It is interesting that he says in any other "context"... However, with an issue like this, is context not extremely important? Let me move forward and begin to answer the question.

There are three important points that I will make in response to this question: (1) Jesus did not ask his followers to literally ask us to eat his body and drink his blood, (2) there are reasons why Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, and (3) this question does not logically lead one to the conclusion drawn by the video.

There are three major texts that deal with the topic at hand:

"So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'" (John 6:53 ESV)

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.'" (Matthew 26:26-29)

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way he also took the cup, after supper saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

While different traditions of Christianity are going to have different interpretations I think there is good reason to believe that Jesus was not speaking literally in John 6:53. Rather he was speaking in a spiritual sense. Eating of Jesus's "body" and drinking his "blood" serves as a spiritual nourishment to the Christian. It is worth noting that there is no historical account of Jesus' audience literally eating his body an drinking his blood, so it would appear his audience also understood this was not meant literally.

In his Systematic Theology, Wayne Grudem offers 7 different things that are symbolized and affirmed in the Lord's Supper (pp. 990-991):

1. Christ's Death

2. Our Participation in the Benefits of Christ's Death

3. Spiritual Nourishment

4. The Unity of Believers

5. Christ Affirms His Love for Me

6. Christ Affirms That All the Blessings of Salvation Are Reserved for Me

7. I Affirm My Faith in Christ

So in direct response to the original question, the above 7 points offered by Grudem are why we participate in the Lord's Supper. Perhaps even more concisely we look to Paul's mention of the tradition where he writes, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes". In the Christian Worldview doesn't this make complete since? If Christ's death atoned for our sins, doesn't it make since that Christ would put in place practices that will remind us of this while we go through this life in a fallen world so that we both remember to be thankful for what he has done and that he will return again? It doesn't seem as bizarre as this video would lead you to believe once put in it's proper context.

Finally, I will take issue with the question. This video tries to lead it's viewers to the conclusion that God is imaginary. How does this question have anything to do with that? How does finding something odd about a religion lead one to the conclusion that God must be imaginary? It's almost as if those making the video are saying, "I don't understand God, therefore he does not exist" or "God does things I wouldn't do, therefore he is imaginary". This is a video who asks for intelligent Christians to watch but fails to offer intelligent questions.

A Response to Tony Plakas's "Men, leave childbirth decisions to the child-bearers"

2011-10-26T16:56:00.000-07:00

I hope to get back to blogging in response to the "10 Questions Every Intelligent Christian Answer" soon, however I came across an opinion article in the Sun-Sentinel that I could not ignore. The article title is "Men, leave childbirth decisions to the child-bearers" ( http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-tpcol-gop-women-plakas-0928-20110928,0,413845.column). I found the article to be very problematic for two major reasons. Inconsistency and it's inability to point out the key point in the abortion debate. I emailed a response to Mr. Plakas and I hope he will take the time to read and respond. However, I hope that reading this may also help you who are thinking through this issue or those who are hoping to be able to better defend the pro-life view against common claims that are made. Here is the email I wrote in response to the article:

Hello Mr. Plakas,

On September 28, 2011 The Sun-Sentinel published an opinion piece that you wrote entitled, “Men, leave childbirth decisions to the child-bearers”. First of all, I want you to know that I admire those who are willing to write and publish their opinions for others to read and respond to. I respect that and hope that my comments will serve to advance the dialogue on this very important issue and will not come across as just more hate mail. That being said, I find your article to be very problematic for two reasons. The first is its inconsistency. The second is that it completely misses the key issue of the abortion debate.

In your article you wrote, “And watching anyone impose their personal beliefs upon the will of another person broadcasts how little we as a society understand morality and respect the ability of others to make the best decisions they can for themselves.” I found this very interesting Mr. Plakas. I think it would be appropriate for me to ask the question, are you imposing your personal beliefs on me saying that I should not be imposing my beliefs on another person? It seems you are. Unless you are simply trying to show why you think your belief is the appropriate one, which then means pro-life advocates should also have a chance to express why their view is the appropriate one to hold.

You go on to write, “Conception- the fertilization of an egg by a sperm- is a biological miracle, and a spiritual blessing.” Can you please explain what you mean by “biological miracle” and “spiritual blessing”? These terms “miracle” and “blessing” are usually used in a theistic context, which suggests that perhaps there is a moral law-giver that has laid out a moral code that we should adhere to. However, from the tone of your article I don’t think that is what you were referring to.

Another statement that I think has important implications is “Yet the idea of forcing a woman who is not ready for pregnancy or parenthood to carry a fetus to term is unconscionable to me”. Since when is one’s parental readiness an indicator of whether or not a child should live? If the mother decides to have the baby and after a month or two of the sleepless nights decides she’s not prepared to be a mother do you find it morally acceptable for her to kill that baby? Do you find the fact that we have a law in place that will put that mother in jail “unconscionable”?

It also seems that although you claim women should be the one’s making the decisions about abortion, you really do not care who makes the decisions as long as they agree with you. After all Michele Bachman, a woman, takes a stance on this issue that different than yours and you say she is a hypocrite. You also found it appropriate to write this article which means in certain circumstances it is acceptable that men weigh in with their opinions.

You made an interesting moral statement when you wrote, “The moment we stop looking at each other as autonomous, rational individuals whose privacy should be valued, even when we do not value the decisions of others as we value our own, we disrespect all people by inferring a hierarchy of principles among our different beliefs”. Are you not inferring a hierarchy of principles when you suggest that your belief that I should not impose my values on others is more important than my belief that I must do so if it keeps babies from being murdered?

“Who speaks for the unborn child? The only person who should- the woman tasked with carrying it”. This is interesting Mr. Plakas. If you are consistent in this view then you would have to hold a view that suggests that if a woman is pregnant and drinks alcohol and does drugs throughout her entire pregnancy and gives birth to a baby who is hooked on drugs, the government has no right to take that baby away from the mother. After all, it was her task to carry it was it not? I don’t think so Mr. Plakas and I would like to think that neither do you.

Finally Mr. Plakas, I think it is unfortunate that you missed the crucial point of this who pro-life and pro-choice debate. That is, “what is the unborn”? You see Mr. Plakas that is the most important question that needs to be answered in this debate. If the unborn is a human then there is no justification for killing it for the reasons you’ve offered, but if the unborn is not human than no justification is needed. This is where the debate gets away from you. You see, it’s clear that in order for something to grow it must be alive and humans only produce humans. To suggest that the unborn is not a living human being is to draw an arbitrary line for one’s own agenda.

I pray you reconsider your position Mr. Plakas…millions of lives are at stake.

Sincerely,

Miguel Benitez Jr.

10 Questions that Every Intelligent Christian Must Answer: #10

2011-10-01T05:40:00.000-07:00

My sophomore year of college I had just started my research to find out whether or not I should keep believing in Christianity (http://studentapologist.blogspot.com/2009/02/my-story.html). I was browsing the Internet and looking at a few atheist sites when I came across a video called, "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer". I remember watching it and it really caused me to think. I remember thinking that I couldn't really provide an answer for most of those questions. I then came across the video again my senior year of college and realized that I could answer about 7 of the questions. Then I came across it again a few weeks ago and realize that all of them can be responded to with substantive answers and that the questions themselves are not that thoughtful.

I will begin to deal with one question at a time working in reverse order, so this time I will start with Question 10, "Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?"

The first problem with this question is that it says nothing to whether Christianity is really true or not. The Christian worldview accounts for the fact that Christians do things that are not right and at times dishonor the Lord. As Christians we are a work in progress. It is also important to point out that there are specific instructions in scripture regarding marriage and there are two instances in which divorce is permitted, although it is always the very last resort. One of those instances is in the case of infidelity. This unfortunately occurs far too often in our society. So, in order to make the point that Christians wrongfully divorce as often as non-Christians the statistics would need to exclude all marriages that end due to infidelity. Once this has been done we would then have to reevaluate the numbers but nevertheless the first point still stands. The Christian worldview accounts for Christians messing up.

One other point that I found of great interest is that this statistic may actually be all together wrong. Dr. Bradley Wright, a professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut, has written a book (http://www.amazon.com/Christians-Hate-Filled-Hypocrites-Other-Youve/dp/B004HB1BR4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317499115&sr=8-1) that shatters this myth. A brief article on this can be found at http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=34656 . Some numbers indicate that who regularly attend church are 35% less likely to divorce than non-Christians.

Although my response to question 10 is brief I think it is more than enough to show that this question is just plain bad.

Is God Three Persons?

2011-08-08T03:59:00.000-07:00

One of the aspects that fascinates me most about studying apologetics is how from the very beginning of the Church, apologetics has played a very important role in spreading and maintaining Christianity. One of the church father's and early apologists that I've been very interested in as of late is Tertullian. Tertullian made huge strides for the church in developing and refining the doctrine of the Trinity. In Tertullian's work Against Praxeas, he argued against a doctrine that he called Patripassianism, which argued that God is one person who manifests Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This later became known as "Modalism" because of the belief that God expresses himself in three different "modes".

The Trinity is a very complex doctrine that in all honesty we can probably only understand in part. Nevertheless, this is a doctrine that is taught in scripture. Systematic theologian, Wayne Grudem does a great job of laying out three facts about God that scripture clearly teaches and they are:

1. God is three persons.

2. Each person is fully God.

3. There is one God.

Christians tend to spend most of their time learning how to defend the second point. This is due mostly to groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the deity of Jesus. However, it is equally important to be able to understand and give a defense for the other two points on this list. Point number three I think is most challenging as a practical point. When we study the doctrine of the trinity we must be careful not to become tri-theists as this is not what the scriptures teach. However, you rarely get groups denying this point. Even groups who deny the trinity agree that the historic view is that God is one.

As for point number one above, God is three persons, there are groups in existence today who deny it. Oneness Pentecostals and followers of William Branham deny the idea that there are three persons in the Godhead. That being said I came across a passage in John's Gospel that poses a major problem for the modalist view.

So the Pharisees said to him, "You are bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true." Jesus answered, "Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I along who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." (John 8:13-18)

When I read this passage recently something really caught my eye. Jesus states that the Jewish law at that time required two witness in order for a testimony to be considered trustworthy. Jesus at first dismisses this idea by suggesting it's not a logical way of looking at things. Just because there may be only one witness to an event that does not suggest that some how it cannot be true. However, Jesus does not stop there. He goes on to state that there actually are two witnesses. The first is himself and the second is the Father. In the context of this passage, Jesus' statement would make no sense at all if he and the Father are the same person.

When many of the passages that show the three persons of the Trinity are presented to modalists, they will often suggest that it can be explained by God's omnipresence. The passage sited above however cannot. If Jesus were referring to the omnipresence of God then he would still only have one witness, but Jesus is saying he has two.

Historically in Christianity the doctrine of the Trinity has been essential. It has been one of those dividing lines. It is a doctrine that is difficult and that we must approach humbly, but it is a doctrine that is too important not to get right.

Why Harry Potter is Good for a Relativistic Generation

2011-07-15T17:02:00.000-07:00

* WARNING: If you have not read the books or seen the final movie, this blog may spoil parts of the movie for you.

As many know, the Harry Potter series has been a source of heated controversy amongst Christians. I for some time was not willing to read the books or watch the movies as I felt it would be allowing evil into my thoughts and life. And while I still have yet to read the books, although I hope to be able to soon, I have now officially seen all of the movies and I'm very glad that I did.

It is not my purpose here to respond to Christians who would feel strongly opposed to the Harry Potter series. The purpose of this blog post is to point out a key point in The Deathly Hallows Part II that I think both Christians and non-Christians alike would do well to reflect on.

There came a point in the movie in which Harry Potter had been killed by Voldemort. This of course is the noble action of Potter to die so that others may live. However, I do not want to focus this blog on that specific point although I would gladly admit that is the key point to the entire series. After, Harry dies, although he comes back to life he appears to still be dead at this point, his body is brought before all of his comrades in an attempt to show them that their efforts had failed and that Voldemort was victorious. At this point Voldemort asks those who had to this point been in opposition to him to pledge their allegiance to his side and those who refused would be put to death. After Draco Malfoy is called to cross sides by his parents and he hesitantly obliges, something very interesting occurs.

Neville Longbottom, who to this point in the series has really been an odd character, steps forward and says (I'm paraphrasing the best that I can from memory) "People die every day. Our family, our friends... But they did not die in vain...." then turning his attention to Voldemort he says, "But you will... because you're wrong!". This line of the movie really had me thinking for a while... Voldemort will die in vain because he was wrong. I know what most are thinking right now... "Is that it? Really?" but let us examine the significance of this statement.

Neville was suggesting that Voldemort's life was a waste because he lived and worked for the wrong purpose. Neville makes it clear that there is a right and a wrong of living and Voldemort's opinion had nothing to do with the matter. It seems plain to me that Neville Longbottom is an objectivist!

This is one of the key points that is communicated clearly throughout... there is an objective good and evil and making sure that you are on the right side of it is crucial, otherwise to live is vain because you're wrong. Please do not miss my point, I am not suggesting that Christians do good while everyone else does evil no more than Neville was suggesting that everyone on Harry Potter's side was without sin. Nevertheless, the key was living and even dying for the right purpose.

As with any movie or tale, the parallels with Christianity can only go so far and we should be careful not to push them beyond what they were intended. Yet, I think the message was clearly communicated. The life worth living is the one that is lived for the side that is good, right,true and beautiful. Fortunately for us as muggles, or humans, Jesus Christ died so that we might live on the right side. Let us live lives that are worth living that bring glory and honor to the one who is worthy.

Review: Day by Day with the Best of Spurgeon

2011-04-30T05:23:00.000-07:00

As one who has devoted his studies to the field of Christian Apologetics and theology, I often find myself very unsatisfied with daily devotional books. There are two major reasons why this is the case. One reason is length. For someone who is working full-time and is also enrolled in a graduate program it is difficult to spend a long amount of time each morning reading a devotional book. The second and by far the most important reason I do not like the majority of daily devotional books, is that they are theologically superficial and incredibly man-centered. Day by Day with the Best of Spurgeon has provided an answer to both of these objections.

Day by Day is a phenomenal devotional book. There is only one page of reading for each day and it is theologically rich! Dolores E. Coupland has done a great job of compiling some of Charles Spurgeon's greatest works and has placed it in short segments for the reader to chew on. This devotional is Christ-centered instead of focusing on all the things we need to do.

One of the things that just completely changed my Christian walk was when it was pointed out to me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not for the unbeliever alone. Rather it is for the believer just as much as for the unbeliever. For the unbeliever it is the message of salvation and for the believer it is the message of the mercy and grace that has already saved you and allows you to glorify God daily because of that.

If you're looking for a devotional that will be focused on "being a better friend in the work place" or "8 ways to become better organized" this is not the devotional for you. However, if your desire is to wake up each morning and use a tool that will help you to be focused on Christ and his glory and his gospel then I strongly recommend Day by Day.

Please pick up this great devotional book:
http://www.amazon.com/Day-Best-Spurgeon-Loveliness-Jesus/dp/193526513X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1304167540&sr=8-1

To read more great reviews like this one please go to: http://www.tellusthetruthreviews.blogspot.com/

The Post-Mortem Appearances of Jesus

2011-04-22T20:17:00.000-07:00

In April of 2009 I blogged on the topic of the resurrection (http://studentapologist.blogspot.com/2009/04/resurrection-of-jesus.html) and I discussed how the best explanation for the way the disciples chose to live their lives was that Jesus rose from the dead. Unfortunately, in 2010 I was very inconsistent with my blog, so I did not blog during this very important time of the year.

As I have stated several times before the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is not something that can be discussed at it's full length in a single blog. I have posted 4 other blogs previously in which I make different arguments or at least try and provide some clarification on this subject.

On this Easter weekend of 2011, I am going to write about the post-mortem appearances of Jesus. This specific topic really intrigues me when doing research on the historicity of the resurrection. These appearances have been what helps explain the rise of Christianity for many scholars. For some, these appearances were hallucinations or visions, yet for others these appearances are the evidence that proved to many that Jesus was risen from the dead. As with all of these topics, it cannot be exhausted here, but I would like to take this time to point out what I see as three very important facts:

1. Hallucinations are rare occurrences.
2. Hallucinations are influenced by our culture.
3. Audible hallucinations tend to be very negative and critical.

I have become really interested in researching the hypothesis that the post-mortem appearances for Jesus were just hallucinations. Many, if not most, skeptical scholars accept this hypothesis. I think there are several reasons why this reasoning appeals to scholars, here are just a few:

1. It gives very real experiences that lead to the explosion of Christianity.
2. It helps account for much of the historical data.
3. It is a naturalistic explanation instead of a supernatural one.

As I read books on Christian Apologetics and specifically on the resurrection, I saw that time and time again I saw two responses coming from the Christian camp. The first was that hallucinations are personal. The second response was that the hallucination hypothesis fails to account for the empty tomb. What bothered me about these responses is that they themselves were facts that most skeptics did not agree with. Many disagree with the notion that there are no group hallucinations as well as the idea that there was an empty tomb. This lead me to turn to the field of psychology to research the topic of hallucinations to see if what we see in the New Testament documents is in line with what psychology has gathered on hallucinations.

In his letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul wrote:

For I delivered to you as of first important what I also received: that Christ
died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he
was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he
appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five
hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have
fallen asleep.The he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as
to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Here Paul is claiming that there were over 500 witnesses that saw Jesus after he had been crucified. So the question is, "can this be explained by hallucinations?"

The first of the three facts I would like to make everyone aware of is that hallucinations due occur, however they are rare events. Not only are hallucinations rare, but to have both visual and auditory hallucinations simultaneously is even more rare. I know what many are thinking, "well isn't someone being raised from the dead also very rare?" and the answer to that is "yes". That being said it is important to realize what one is believing when one accepts the hallucination hypothesis. This suggests that over five hundred people at different times, places, states of mind and religious beliefs all had hallucinations which contained simultaneous auditory and visual hallucinations.

The second fact is that hallucinations are heavily influenced by culture. On this Dr. Graham Reed writes, "... as an individual is in part a product of his society, the content of his hallucinations, like that of other psychological phenomena, also reflects cultural characteristics." When one understands 1st century Judaism, one realizes that none of these Jewish men, much less over five hundred of them, would have been anticipating Jesus' resurrection. The resurrection these men believed in was the final resurrection in which all would be raised from the dead. This leaves us with our final fact regarding hallucinations.

The third and final fact we will consider is more specifically about auditory hallucinations. Auditory hallucinations tend to be critical, rude, or mean. Most of the times when people have auditory hallucinations the voices are criticising them or cursing at them. This is not at all what we see from Jesus in the post-mortem appearances. Jesus gives encouragement to his disciples to continue to spread the good news that he has brought to them.

When one takes these three facts into account, it seems that the best explanation for the facts that we have is that Jesus really did rise from the dead!

Part 4 of 5 Intro to Worldview: Postmodernism

2011-03-13T11:59:00.001-07:00

http://www.954church.com/media/sermons?series=21&preacher=13

Intro to Worldview Week 3: Naturalism

2011-02-21T19:25:00.000-08:00

This is part 3 of 5. In this class we discussed naturalism as a worldview.

www.954church.com/media/sermons?service=6&preacher=13&series=10

Intro To Worldview Week 2: Deism

2011-01-29T14:16:00.001-08:00

Here is part 2 of 5 from my introduction to worldview class that I am teaching at Riverside Christian Fellowship:

http://www.954church.com/media/sermons?series=21

Introduction to Worldview

2011-01-13T17:01:00.000-08:00

I have been blessed with the opportunity to teach a five week introduction to worldview class at my home church. The class is based off of James Sire's book The Universe Next Door. The first class was and introduction to the term worldview and the Christian Worldview.

Feel free to listen at the link below:

http://www.954church.com/media/sermons?series=22

Thinking Through the Halloween Controversy

2010-10-09T20:05:00.001-07:00

Halloween is a very controversial subject among Christians. There seems to be three general views on the topic. The first view would see no harm in celebrating Halloween. The second view would not celebrate Halloween but is open to some sort of alternative celebration. The third view would abstain from any participation in Halloween and any alternative celebration. Obviously there is a wide range within each of these groups but generally Christians would fit into one of the three listed.

I have to admit that as a Christian I had never really given it much thought before this year. Now as a newly married man of four months and a teacher of a high school worldview class, I realized that even these sorts of decisions come as a result of worldview. As I have tried to develop a more robust Christian Worldview I decided to take on this topic of Halloween. As with any topic that I try to carefully consider I tried my best to become aware of my preconceptions and my biases in hopes that I could try to come to an honest and thoughtful conclusion.

My hope in this blog is to help the reader also arrive to an honest and thoughtful conclusion. I will examine some of the details, key questions, and popular arguments in order to try and see where we as Christians should stand on the issue. It goes without saying that great Christian men whom I admire stand on different sides of this issue. That being said it does not make this issue any less important. To begin I will briefly summarize the origins of Halloween.

The Origins of Halloween

It is important to state from the beginning that the history of the origins of Halloween probably involves many customs from around the world and thus some of the facts around the early origins of Halloween are disputed. However, there does seem to be a general consensus on the information I will be summarizing here. Long before the idea of "Halloween" the Celts celebrated their New Year on November 1. On October 31^st it is believed that the Celts would celebrate "Samhain" which was their winter festival. On this festival Philosopher and Theologian Kenneth Samples writes, "Samhain was a pagan tradition that commemorated the end of the harvest, the beginning of winter, and the recognition of the physical cycle of death, which included crops, animals, and humans" (1). "Samhain", may also have been the name of their Lord of Death. Some suggest that on October 31^st it was believed that the Lord of Death would gather the souls of the evil dead (2).

Many of the items and customs associated with Halloween also have pagan roots, such as the "Trick or treat" and Halloween costumes. The "treats" were used to avoid the "tricks" of the spirits while Halloween costumes were used to hide from them. Other customs such as bobbing for apples are tied to sorcery and magic.

In A.D. 835, Pope Gregory IV designated November 1^st as All Saints Day. This is where we get the term "Halloween" which was derived from "All Hallow's Evening". All Saints Day was a celebration in remembrance of the saints especially those who had were martyred. It is worth noting that before Pope Gregory IV designated November 1^st as the date for this special day, it had already been celebrated in places all around the world, although there was no uniformed day for it before A.D. 835. One of the inspirations for such a day comes from Hebrews 11. In this passage the author of Hebrews recalls the faith of many of the Old Testament saints.

Genetic Fallacy

As Professor Samples points out in his article "The Tricky Topic of Halloween", it is important that as thoughtful Christians we not consider Halloween as evil simply because of its origins. Those who do are in danger of committing the genetic fallacy. Samples states, "The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea, person, practice, or institution is evaluated solely in terms of its origin, without giving appropriate consideration to how it has changed or evolved in contemporary practice." While I agree with Professor Samples on this point, that one should not give Halloween "appropriate consideration to how it has changed", I still hold that the origin of something is important to know when examining it carefully.

Occult Practices

For the sake of brevity I am going to just assume that Christians can agree that it is not acceptable to participate in Occult practices. Witchcraft, sorcery, fortune telling, etc. all violate God's law and are not acceptable for Christians to participate in on any day of the year including Halloween.

A Matter of the Conscience

With the two previous points made in mind, namely that one must use caution to avoid the genetic fallacy and that Christians should always abstain from Occult practices, I now bring up a third important point when examining this issue. Many Christians will blow off this question by stating that it is a matter of the conscience. I want to clarify, that not all people who have arrived to this conclusion have "blown off" the question, however to give this answer in order to blow off this question would not be appropriate. Scripture is clear that some issues are not so black and white. Some issues truly are a matter of the conscience (see Romans 14). That being said an issue does not become a matter of the conscience just because we say so. Therefore, we must carefully consider if Halloween is one of those issues that is not so black and white. It is important to remember that on some issues our conscience can be misinformed.

Engaging the Culture

A fourth point I want to make is that it seems consistent with the Christian Worldview that we are to engage the culture. We are not to be ashamed or afraid of that which the culture is partaking in. We have a responsibility to respond to lies with truth, to darkness with light and to death with life. If it is true that this is the case, and I would suggest that it is, then I would say we should not feel the need to avoid every kind of celebration on this day.

Conclusion

Keeping the four points above in mind it seems most consistent with the Christian worldview to fall into the second group listed at the beginning. That would be the group that would abstain from celebrating Halloween as we know it today but would opt to seek an alternative that honors and glorifies God. I do want to be clear that I believe that some alternatives are more appropriate and effective than others. For example, to simply bring the exact customs of Halloween into the church and call it a "harvest festival" or a "hallelujah night" does not seem to be much of an alternative, rather it seems like Halloween in church. However, to bring back the idea of remembering the saints that have gone before us such as the apostles Peter and Paul, reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, and even social reformers such as William Wilberforce, may do a lot of good to a generation of Christians who does not know very much about their faith's history.

References

Kenneth Samples "The Tricky Topic of Halloween" available from reasons.org/trick-topic-halloween-0
John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Halloween, (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1996)

Everyone Has a Story

2010-09-29T19:49:00.001-07:00

A couple of years ago I was driving home one night after church and I was listening to a Christian radio station. There was a radio show on at the time that had two pastors on it that would answer callers' questions. Most of the questions were of a spiritual and or moral nature. "How can I get rid of my guilt?" "How can I get closer to God?" "How do I know God's will for my life?" "How should I understand this area of scripture?" "What happens when we die?" These were the types of questions that were being fielded by these two pastors. However, about 20 minutes into my ride there was one caller whose call I may never forget.

The caller sounded as if he were in his early to mid-twenties and he said that he had a roommate who wasn't a Christian and that his faith was really being challenged by this roommate of his. He said that his roommate was claiming that the story of Jesus arose from pagan stories that predated it. You could hear the frustration in the caller's voice as he just did not know how he should respond to these objections that were being raised. After giving a few more examples of the sorts of arguments his roommate was giving against Christianity he asked how he should respond to him. What one of the pastors on the radio show said next almost caused me to explode out of my seat!

"Have you shared your testimony?" said the pastor. The caller said, "Yes, actually I have." Then the pastor said, "Yeah, well a testimony is hard to argue against." And that was it. They wished him the best and sent the caller on his way. Have you shared your testimony?!?!? With responses like these are we really shocked to hear that 70% of students who go to church leave the church before the graduate from college?

You may be asking, "ok, so what is your point?" Well, my point is that it is an unfortunate situation that we have today when as Christians we are using are testimonies as an excuse to remain ignorant. I want to make one point clear from the outset; I am not opposed to a Christian giving their testimony of what God has done in their life. However, I think there are a couple points that are very important for Christians to keep in mind.

Our testimony of the change in our life is NOT the Gospel. The Gospel is about what Jesus already did on the cross. Sometimes Christians mistakenly think that because they share their story about how they used to drink and now have been able to stop ever since they "asked Jesus into their heart" is equivalent to sharing the gospel. It is not. It is important to remember that if the gospel becomes primarily about my life then that's NOT good news because I am a sinner. The gospel is about Jesus Christ and the life that he did, the death that he died and the resurrection that confirmed it all.
Our testimonies are not irrefutable arguments for God's existence or of the truth of Christianity. There are Muslims, Buddhists, and Atheists who all claim that switching to their particular religion or worldview has changed them and allowed them to lead a more fulfilled and moral life. So, where does this battle of subjective experiences leave us? It seems that Christianity, regardless of what it did for someone's life, is only worth believing in if it is absolutely true.

Again, I want to reiterate that testimonies can be good and glorifying to God when they are used to praise Him for the grace that he has given us. However, it is worth noting that the majority of the time that Apostles were giving testimony it was their eyewitness testimony of the resurrected Jesus (Acts 4:1-2, 32-33; 1 Cor. 15). We too should be giving the evidences for the resurrected Christ. We as Christians are blessed to live in such a time in which the scholarship in Christian apologetics is stronger than it has been in centuries. It is irresponsible for us to be intellectually lazy and present Christianity as a subjective feeling or an anti-intellectual religion. In his letter to the Corinthian church Paul writes to them, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:17-19).

Paul is basically saying that if Christianity is not actually true then it is a complete waste of time. Paul by the statement above separated Christianity from most world religions by making it falsifiable. Christians need to have the same confidence today. There are good answers for those who are asking the hard questions like that caller a couple of years ago, it is about time we started providing them.

BOOK Review: The Journey to Truth

2010-08-04T18:20:00.001-07:00

In February I received an email from Arielle with Bring it On Communications (www.bringitoncommunications.com). She wanted to know if I would be interested in reviewing a book for her organization, whose purpose is to promote books for people. This was my first interaction with Arielle and the first time I had heard of Bring it On Communications, but I was honored by the fact that anyone would find review of a book as helpful or valuable. I'm assuming from the little interaction I've had with Arielle is that the reason she asked me to review the book is because she has come across my blog and saw that I often blog about issues relating to the Christian faith, science, philosophy, history and theology.

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm caused me to commit to something that perhaps realistically I should have passed up knowing that my schedule was going to get very crazy. As those who read my blog can tell, it's been a few months since I last blogged about anything. Between working full time, working on my M.A. program and getting married this past June, it has just been near impossible for me to sit down and blog. However, all that being said now that things are settling a bit I want to recommit myself to blogging on a regular basis on these important issues.

With all that being said, I finally had the opportunity to finish reading The Journey to Truth: How Scientific Discovery Provides Insights into Spiritual Truths by George F. Garlick Ph.D.

The author begins by telling his story of humble beginnings on a farm in Nebraska. He writes about certain life experiences, such as the passing away of a family member, or of a beloved pet, as well as being challenged in his academic pursuit, that all played a role in the forming and shaping of his life. To a certain extent all people can relate to Dr. Garlick's personal recollections as everyone encounters events in one's life that either cause doubt of God's existence or encourage it. Interwoven with the personal stories and experiences, Dr. Garlick also discusses the relationship between science and religion, specifically Christianity.

In the third chapter of his book, Dr. Garlick discussed "The Mountain of Truth". On one side he lists the covenants such as Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, etc. until he reaches Christ's New covenant. This side of the mountain is very straight and very steep. On the other side he has scientific discoveries such as Greek astronomy and mathematics, Copernicus and the scientific revolution, etc. all the way to String Theory. On this he writes, "The significant difference between the two sides of the mountain is that on the spiritual side, everything has already been revealed in the Scriptures. In a sense the top of the mountain is revealed in every book of the Bible…" (pp. 39-40). He goes on to say, "On the scientific side, however, we cannot see the top of the mountain, and must spend more time and energy stumbling forward and falling back" (pp. 40).

This picture of a mountain that he gives I think is in some ways an accurate picture and in others can lead to misunderstanding. Historic Christianity has taught that there are two ways in which God has revealed himself. The first is through general or natural revelation and the second is through special revelation. I do want to give Dr. Garlick the benefit of the doubt because he did label one side the covenants and the other science, so I think as far as his picture does go it is very true. However, it is important to clarify that although special revelation is to be given preference, general revelation can many times help clarify special revelation. It should also be noted that if one rightly understands special revelation and nature they are never contradictory. That being said, I think Dr. Garlick brings up a very good point in that God's plan is clearly laid out for us in scripture and there is a certain clarity in the scriptures that nature cannot match.

About halfway through the book is when Dr. Garlick begins to really lay out his major point of the book. While some use science to make a case for God's existence, Dr. Garlick would probably be one who is more comfortable discussing how science and faith are complementary and in harmony. In the fifth chapter of his book, Dr. Garlick gives an explanation of dimensions. Ultimately, this leads to his conclusion that a fifth dimension exists and that it helps answer some of the very difficult questions for Christianity. The three major questions he addresses are "why does sin separate us from God?" "how are miracles possible?" and "how can we communicate with God?".

Of the three major questions that Dr. Garlick attempts to answer the one I found to be most interesting was "how are miracles possible?" Dr. Garlick posits that the fifth dimension would help explain Jesus' appearances and disappearances such as when he appears to the disciples in John 20 (pp. 91). He also explains that the fifth dimension offers insight into God speaking from unknown locations (pp.92). God's healing power and the power of prayer is also discussed in this section (pp. 94&97).

I find Dr. Garlick's assertions and hypothesis to be quite interesting. I really do hope that many thoughtful Christians will take the time to read this book and offer reviews of it. It is only through the peer review process that we can revise and refine our work to get the very best out of it. I hope that both Christian physicists and theologians will review this book so that it will offer Dr. Garlick the opportunity to reply to the critiques of his books.

While I am neither a physicist nor a theologian (at least not yet!), I am studying apologetics and I do see apologetic value in Dr. Garlick's theory of the fifth dimension if it turns out the evidence supports it. While I've already stated that this does not provide an argument for God's existence, it does help to combat the naturalistic assumptions that faith and science are at odds.

With all that being said, I would want to ask Dr. Garlick one question that would help me better understand his position. How is it that he holds his view of the relationship between time and heaven the way he does as expressed on pp. 129 of his book when we have instances recorded in scripture such as the martyrs in Revelation 6:9-10 who seem to be in the presence of God and are also tired of waiting? It is these sort of theological implications that I hope to see Dr. Garlick address in his future works. I certainly think that until then Dr. Garlick has given us much to think about!

My Response to Gary Stein’s Piece on “Anti-Abortionists”

2010-03-12T17:39:00.001-08:00

This was my response to Mr. Gary Stein's Piece found at this link http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/todaysbuzz/friday/sfl-0311-buzz-stein-abortion,0,3390941.story

Mr. Stein,

I have to say that I was very disappointed with your piece on March 12, 2010 entitled "Let's see anti-abortionists tell the OTHER side". What disappointed me most about your piece was not so much that you wrote against the pro-life view, which you decided to call "anti-abortionists", but rather that you failed to deal with any of the arguments pertaining to this very important issue.

You state "How about you yahoos also put up signs of kids who were abused because they were unwanted, kids who were starved, kids who were beaten, all because they were unwanted." I find this interesting Mr. Stein. We both know these children exist and I would go out on a limb and say that we agree that it would be wrong to abuse, starve, beat or kill these children all because they are unwanted. Yet, you suggest we should do it to them while they are still in the womb. Why is this Mr. Stein? Why do you value life once it is out of the womb but thinking nothing of taking it while it is still in the womb?

Perhaps you believe that the unborn baby is not really a person until they are out of the womb? Why do you pick such an arbitrary standard for life or personhood? There is so much scientific literature that would suggest that the unborn is human Mr. Stein but for the sake of brevity I will pose just one question to you. Are you absolutely certain that the unborn are not human?

If you cannot give an absolute "yes" to this answer with evidence to support it then your stance on this matter fails Mr. Stein. Let's say that you were in charge of the demolition of a building. You send in a group of workers to make sure that no one remains in the building. When the group of workers comes out you ask them if the building is empty and they reply "we're not sure" or "probably", are you going to move forward with the demolition of the building Mr. Stein? Or do you want to be certain that everyone is out of the building? Similarly, if you cannot be one hundred percent certain that the unborn are not living humans then you have no right to be killing them.

Rather than slinging more mud and calling people names such as "clowns" and "yahoos", I suggest that you begin to deal with the well thought out arguments of the opposing side and deal with them. Your emotional arguments will not help us make any progress on this topic.

Sincerely,

Miguel Benitez Jr.

McDowell VS Corbett Debate

2010-03-01T18:03:00.001-08:00

Debates

Before I begin to discuss more specific points of the debate I want to make a few comments regarding debates in general. It seems like many are attracted to debates (over 300 in attendance and hundreds more watching the live feed over the internet for this particular debate) but several feel that they are not really a great platform for the exchange of ideas or for determining truth. However, I do think it is a good opportunity to hear two sides of an issue discussed and critiqued. While everyone wants their side to win, I would suggest it is also important to listen to the ideas presented and evaluate each side. At the very least I believe debates offer a form of peer review on the important ideas that are discussed.

The Debate

The debate was called "Is God the Best Explanation for Moral Values?" Unfortunately, I was a little disappointed with the debate because I felt like the debaters never really engaged each other and the arguments on both sides seemed very superficial. Sean McDowell, the Christian of the debate, is smart guy who no doubt is emerging on to the Christian apologetics scene. He seems to have a good general knowledge of Christian apologetics, having co-authored books with very well known apologists in various subject areas. I am not sure how many debates Sean has done if any prior to this one, but he is in his early to mid thirties and has an ability to communicate ideas.

McDowell was defending two main points:

If God does not exist, we do not have a solid foundation for objective moral values.
If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for objective moral values.

He also laid out three points that morality must account for:

A transcendent standard

"The law above the law"

Free will
Human value

James Corbett started off his point by pointing out questionable actions of Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Knox. He was suggesting that these men who are thought of very highly by Christians had God as their foundation for moral values but still committed some immoral actions. Sean throughout the debate tried to point out to Mr. Corbett that he had no grounds for pointing out the immoral actions of others if he is consistent with his worldview, but this point never seemed to be understood by Mr. Corbett. The fact that Christians have done evil things in the past has no bearing on the question of whether God is the best explanation for moral values or not.

The second point Mr. Corbett made was that he seriously doubts that Sean understands God's will better than anyone else does. He later also mentioned that Christians have never agreed on the proper interpretation of the bible and morality. He was inferring that due to the fact that people disagree on the will of God or the interpretation of the bible then God must not be the best explanation for moral values. McDowell rightly pointed out to him that the question of how one comes to know morality is different than how one grounds morality. This too seemed to be a distinction that Corbett never really understood.

Mr. Corbett's third attempt to show that God was not the best explanation for moral values was to argue that "religious" societies are more "dysfunctional" and secular societies are less "dysfunctional" in their behavior. First, it is worth mentioning that this still fails to answer the question of the debate because Mr. Corbett has failed to offer an alternative explanation for moral values. Second, while Mr. Corbett did cite a couple of studies this seems to go against what we have seen from history. Dinesh Desousa, as well as others, often point out that atheistic societies are responsible for the largest numbers of death in history. So, Mr. Corbett may be correct about the studies he cited however there is no doubt that when one looks at the big scale, atheistic worldviews have caused far more destruction than theistic ones. Lastly on this point, it is also fair to say that those atheistic regimes were acting consistent with their worldview while those theistic ones were not.

Mr. Corbett's closing statement was a suggestion to "trust your own mind". If Mr. Corbett really believed that then why in the world did he spend an hour and a half suggesting Sean McDowell was not justified in doing that very thing!

If it seems to you as if Mr. Corbett's points were not very well thought out and not the slight bit persuasive, even if you are an atheist, you are correct! I am not exaggerating. I am sure this debate is available on the internet and you can watch it for yourself.

Mr. Corbett's only offer for an explanation for moral grounding was evolution. He at no point tried to show how evolution is a better grounding for morality than God, but simply asserted that morality has evolved. To this I will only make one point. It is often said that morality evolved in order to help us survive and advance our species. Well the truth is why should I care about the advancement of my species? In fact if I feel nothing once I die why do I even care about survival at all? Why am I not just doing whatever feels good and enjoying it as long until I die? And if morality is evolved does that mean that if there are circumstances in which rape helps survival then rape is morally justifiable? It seems to me that evolution is not a very good candidate for being the best explanation for morality.

So I leave it to you, those who are reading out there to deal with the two points that Sean McDowell proposed:

If God does not exist, we do not have a solid foundation for objective moral values.
If God does exist, we do have a solid foundation for objective moral values.

Responding to an Argument against the Evidence of the Resurrection

2010-01-28T04:45:00.001-08:00

The historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is overwhelming. Many have tried to make a case against it but time and time again these attempts fail. In this post I will respond to an argument against the evidence for the resurrection that was posted by Evan, one who contributes or at least was a contributor at one time to the Debunking Christianity Blog (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com). Debunking Christianity is a blog that was founded by John Loftus and has become very popular among Atheists and even Christians as different arguments are posted in an attempt to Debunk Christianity. I hope over time to deal with many of the arguments that have been posted on that blog, more specifically Mr. Loftus's arguments, but for this post I will be dealing with the argument posted by Evan (http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/09/one-of-earliest-witnesses.html) that he summarized as follows:

Prior to Paul's conversion, any evidence for the resurrection was just as strong as it was after his conversion.
The evidence for the resurrection failed to convince Paul of the truth of Christianity.
Therefore, the evidence for the resurrection alone, without specific interventions by God to make someone believe, must be inadequate to convince a skeptic who has not had a vision from God of its truth.

First Premise

While I appreciate Evan's attempt to make a clear and concise argument, I'm surprised he even considered developing it further than his first premise. "Prior to Paul's conversion, any evidence for the resurrection was just as strong as it was after his conversion", WOAH! Really? Paul's witnessing of the risen Jesus and his conversion are huge contributor's to the historical evidence of the resurrection. Evan's first premise is false. Paul was a persecutor of Christians who witnessed the risen Jesus in such a way that completely changed his way of thinking. This most certainly adds to the evidence of the resurrection. I do not want to over play this but quite frankly I am shocked that such a premise was given! It is worth noting that Mr. Loftus slightly revised Evan's second premise and his conclusion but did not touch his first premise!

One must deal with the event that caused Paul's conversion. What was it? How does it not make the case for the resurrection stronger? For one of my graduate level courses I recently wrote a short paper, one that I hope to expound on in the near future, dealing with the most common answer to these questions which is known as the "hallucination hypothesis". In an attempt to properly investigate this claim I looked at psychology articles and text books that deal with hallucinations. While I will not give the entire case against the hallucination hypothesis in this post, it is important to note that from what we know from psychology, Paul was not a likely candidate for a hallucination, having both visual and auditory hallucinations simultaneously is extremely rare. The evidence suggests that Paul's experience was not a hallucination and that the evidence that he did have a hallucination is extremely weak at best.

Paul was a persecutor and skeptic of Christianity who witnessed the risen Jesus and converted to Christianity. This certainly makes the case for the resurrection of Jesus stronger therefore showing that Evan's first premise is false.

Second Premise

Technically we could pack our bags and head home because of the fact that Evan's first premise is false, however I think he brings up a couple of good points in his second premise and conclusion so I will proceed to comment on them. "The evidence for the resurrection failed to convince Paul of the truth of Christianity" one should start by asking what this proves. Well this if true means that apart from seeing the risen Jesus himself, whatever evidence Paul had come across was not convincing to him. So the question remains why was the evidence, apart from seeing the risen Jesus, that Paul came across not enough to convince him of the resurrection? Perhaps Paul was not really in a position to evaluate the evidence fairly. While I am not a presuppositional apologist, I do think it is important to realize that we all do have presuppositions and must account for them when investigating and evaluating evidences and arguments. Paul's presuppositions were probably very strong. Paul was a well trained and educated Pharisee who would have associated resurrection with the final resurrection. This concept of a single resurrected person would have been uncomfortable to Paul. It is also no secret that Jesus had several encounters with the Pharisees and from the encounters it is fair to conclude that the Pharisees as a group were not friends with Jesus or his followers. Therefore, Paul's religious beliefs and his association with a specific group may have influenced him in such a way to affect his evaluation of the evidence. Perhaps his presuppositions kept him from hearing the case for the resurrection at all. There is too little said about Paul's investigation of the evidence to make too much of it.

Evan writes:

Therefore, the evidence wasn't convincing enough for Paul, who was alive and able to interview the supposed Christian eyewitnesses whose stories supposedly later became the Greek gospels. The only evidence that convinced Paul was a vision. If Paul had not had the vision, he would have continued to remain unconvinced, meaning there simply was not adequate physical or testimonial support for the belief in the resurrection prior to the time Paul had his vision.

This means that the evidence was not enough for Paul at the time. However, this says nothing of how others were responding to the evidence. I would also like to know how Evan knows that "If Paul had not had the vision, he would have continued to remain unconvinced…" Once again we do not know what kind of investigation Paul had conducted and therefore we should not try to make such grand conclusions about it.

Before discussing Evan's conclusion to his argument it is fair to say that his first premise is false and his second premise tells us very little beyond the fact Paul was a skeptic prior to his witnessing the risen Jesus. Careful examination exposes just how weak this argument really is.

Conclusion

With a false first premise and a weak second premise it is not surprising that one arrives to a false conclusion as Evan did. However, to eliminate the thought that Evan would simply need to reword his argument to maintain the same conclusion, I will show good reason to suggest that Evan's conclusion is not an accurate one that is supported by the evidence. Evan's conclusion is that "the evidence for the resurrection alone, without specific interventions by God to make someone believe, must be inadequate to convince a skeptic who has not had a vision from God of its truth." This is interesting because this conclusion is derived from the fact that one skeptic, namely Paul, did not believe until he saw the risen Jesus himself.

I would like to start out by pointing to the account that we are given in the book of Acts in chapter 17. In this chapter Paul is having conversations with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers of his time and it says "he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection" (v.18). It does not tell us exactly what Paul was saying to these men but we are told that the resurrection was the topic. He was brought in front of more philosophers to give a lecture in which he also spoke of the resurrection. Unless one truly thinks that Paul's lecture was 15 seconds long it is safe to assume that Acts only paraphrases Paul's lecture. What we do know is that the resurrection was also a big topic in his lecture. In the closing verses of Acts 17 it tells us, "Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, 'We will hear you again about this.' So Paul went out of their midst. But some men joined him and believed…" (v. 32-34). This indicates that there were skeptics who were convinced by whatever evidence Paul presented for the resurrection. Not any skeptics but the philosophers of Paul's day! No not all believed, some mocked the idea, others wanted to discuss the matter further, and yet others did believe and become Christians. Sounds to me like Paul's presentation of the resurrection stood its ground in an academic arena full of skeptics.

Another important point worth noting is that it seems odd that the early Christians would have a creed like the one found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 if they were not reciting it and sharing that evidence with those who they preached to. And if they were sharing that creed with those who were skeptics then apparently it was sufficient for many because we do know that Christianity was spreading.

Therefore, Evan's conclusion is not supported by the evidence we have from the historical record. Mr. Loftus and his fellow contributors to the DC blog love to offer Christian's challenges and so I will do the same for Evan. Investigate the historical evidence for the resurrection and I do not mean by reading the popular level works but by really digging into the history, the theology, and the psychology and answer the question "what is the best explanation for what happened to Jesus of Nazareth?"

My First Visit to the Socrates Café

2009-10-27T05:11:00.001-07:00

Last week I went to my first Socrates Café meeting. Socrates Café is a group that meets at my local library once a month to discuss a previously decided philosophical question. The topic for the month of October was "Which is more powerful, Love or Hate?" I have to admit that when I first heard the topic I was a little disappointed. As someone who normally studies philosophy in order to answer questions dealing with the existence of God and the meaning of life, I wasn't thrilled to be dealing with the issue of love and hate. However, my goal in going was to represent the Christian worldview in a well mannered and thoughtful way no matter the topic. Sure enough God allowed certain comments to be made that allowed me to challenge atheistic and relativistic thinking that was taking place in the group. While the discussions are 90 minutes long and far too much is said to blog about entirely, my hope is to take one major observation each week and communicate it on my blog. This month it has to do with the power of hate in our lives.

During the discussion one gentleman said that he believed that hate is more powerful than love. The reason he gave was that although love is preached far more than hate, it seems easier to hate than to love. He brought up the Judeo-Christian beliefs of loving your neighbor and how much it is preached throughout their respective texts, yet in spite of the amount of time spent on this it seems like it is so hard to live out and so easy to hate. I found this man's comments very interesting. I almost felt as if he was trying to communicate that although we know that love is the right thing our natures incline us to hate.

I was hoping to catch up with this gentleman after the discussion was over but unfortunately he left before I could get to him. Had I been able to talk to him after, I would have asked him something along the lines of "Isn't it interesting that we acknowledge that love is the right thing to do, but it seems as if our natures tell us just the opposite?" I believe this man's observations are right in line with the Christian worldview.

Christianity teaches us that we have sinful natures. That although we may know what's right we rebel against God according to our nature. This is why Christianities solution is not like that of many other world religions which suggest changing your behavior. No, Christianity teaches that we need a new nature and that we need to be made an entirely new creation. This is a work that we cannot do in our own lives, rather it is a supernatural work that must be done by God himself. This is where the power of what Jesus did on the cross comes into play. Jesus conqured sin and death so that we may be set free.

It seemed to me that at the end of the night after a discussion about love and hate, this gentleman was in a way realizing that something just wasn't right. I pray God uses that to save him from his nature and to give him a nature that seeks after God.

Some Rational Thought on the Pro-Life View

2009-10-17T17:50:00.001-07:00

On October 4^th Jim McGarvey, pro-life speaker and fellow member of my church, spoke from the pulpit with a powerful message on the abortion issue. The message was entitled "The Spiritual Roots of Abortion" (http://www.rcfonline.org/podcast/2009/10/abortion-the-devil-and-the-church/ ). Jim touched on issues in relation to the Abortion debate that I had never thought of before. He emphasized that this is a spiritual war as much as it is a cultural one. I really recommend anyone reading this to listen to his presentation at the link posted above. Jim's presentation opened my eyes to a whole other side of this issue.

However, in this blog I'm going to take what would be a more traditional approach, in the field of Christian Apologetics, in the defense of the pro-life position. That being said before I begin to lay out my argument I want to make a statement that I think is important to keep in mind. Jesus Christ came to save his people. Christ died on the cross to pay for the penalty of our sins. He showed his power over death by being risen from the dead on the third day. Therefore, if you are in any way connected to an abortion, there is hope and restoration that is found in Christ Jesus our Lord. I think it is very important to keep that in mind. That being said this is a very serious issue that we must wrestle with in order to save the lives of the unborn.

I think this entire debate can be boiled down to one key issue… What is the unborn? As Christian Apologist Greg Koukl often says, "If the unborn is not human no justification is needed, if the unborn is human no justification is sufficient" for abortion.

Usually there are four main reasons why someone might consider the unborn to be anything less than human and they are remembered easily by the acronym SLED.

Size: Size is probably the weakest argument because it's fairly obvious that size has nothing to do with our personhood. A 7' tall man or woman is no more human than a 5' man or woman. Size does not determine our personhood.
Level of development: This too is a very weak argument. We would all admit that a 50 year old is far more developed than a 4 year old. However, would any of us claim that a 50 year old is more human than a 4 year old? No, of course not! Level of development does not determine our personhood.
Environment: Where someone lives tells you nothing about WHO the person actually is. This is just an arbitrary prejudice against the unborn that really has no merit. Environment does not determine our personhood.
Degree of Dependency: Once again this is a very inconsistent way of thinking for anyone who offers this argument. Would we say that anyone who is dependent on some kind of machine is less human than we are? I would have to suggest that the answer is once again no!

If one is consistent when dealing with the difficult issues that are raised in this emotional debate one will see that the arguments for abortion are driven more from an emotional standpoint than a justified or logical one. This is an issue of life and death and therefore it is a very serious issue that none of us should take lightly.

For careful and thoughtful resources on this issue I recommend:

The Case for Life by Scott Klusendorf

www.abortionno.org

Clearing Confusion on the Moral Argument

2009-09-29T10:32:00.000-07:00

The Moral Argument is one of the classic philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The argument is usually presented as follows:

Premise (1): If God does not exist, then objective Moral values do not exist.
Premise (2): Objective values do exist
Conclusion: Therefore God exists

Now this argument is pretty straight forward but it is very important to keep the premises in mind and not assume an argument that is not being made. Failure to do this often results in straw-men which are not helpful to the discussion. It is my hope to clear up one of the common misconceptions about this argument. I believe that if this one point can be cleared up many atheists will be forced to re-examine their dismissal of this argument.

The response that has become very popular among atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens, is that the only way this argument is valid is if the theist can give an example of a moral act that an atheist is unable to perform due to their unbelief. This response can be very frustrating because it is missing the argument all together. The argument does not say, “If belief in God does not exist, then moral values do not exist.” Rather it says, “If God does not exist, then objective moral values exist.” Therefore, the argument is claiming that if God does not exist then there are not objective moral values for the theist or the atheist. It also follows that if God does exist then objective moral values exist for both the theist and the atheist.

A proper response to the moral argument has to deal with the two premises, which the above response does not do. In order to tear down the moral argument the atheist would have to do one of two things:

1. Give us an alternative grounding for objective morality.
2. Demonstrate that objective moral values do not exist.

I have yet to see an argument that demonstrates either of these two things which is why I find the moral argument so persuasive. In order to make progress in conversations theists and atheists must try to have clarity and understanding of one’s arguments. I hope this helps clear up some of the confusion and that perhaps will cause some to reconsider their stance on this argument.

Isaiah 53 Prophecy and the Christian Faith

2009-07-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

As one who is always examining the evidence and trying to put forward the best and most thought out arguments in favor of the Christian faith, I have recently been thinking a lot about prophecy in the bible. Does it have any apologetic value? It just seems like such a controversial issue. In all honesty even I am skeptical sometimes of some of the passages that we now read as prophecy in the sense that I wonder if the Jewish people ever saw some of them as prophecies. However, I do think that if one evaluates some of these prophecies and deals with the ones that don’t have huge historical questions surrounding them, such as Daniel and the date in which it was written, I think it would be fair to use them when examining the Christian faith.

One of the prophecies of the Old Testament that impresses me most is found in the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah was written at least 500 years (probably much earlier) before the life of Jesus. I think that if we look at what Isaiah 53 has to say, so long is we have no strict naturalist presupposition; we have to admit this passage really does seem to describe the historical Jesus. I will quote from a translation from the Jewish Publication Society so that we do not have to worry about any Christian translators possibly slipping words in to make it seem more like Jesus than what it really is.

“Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he has grown, by His favor, like a tree crown, Like a tree trunk out of arid ground. He had no form or beauty, that we should look at him: no charm, that we should find him pleasing. He was despised, we held him of no account. Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, our suffering that he endured. We accounted him plagued, smitten and afflicted by God; but he was wounded because of our sin, crushed because of our iniquities. He bore the chastisement that made us whole, and by his bruises we were healed. We all went astray like sheep, each going his own way; and the Lord visited upon him the guilt of all of us.” (Isaiah 53:1-6)

Seems to me as we look through history no one comes close to fitting this description like Jesus. This one thing probably is not enough to convince you of anything but maybe it will cause you to think that just maybe there is something to this thing called the bible. And maybe there is something to this man named Jesus. And just maybe there is something to the things that he claimed. I suggest that there is and if I’m right your search for truth on these issues should be the investigation of your life!

4 Views of Islam on the Crucifixion

2009-07-23T12:55:00.000-07:00

In reference to Jesus' crucifixion the Quran states, "And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him" (Sura 4:157)

Islam has interpreted this passage of the Quran in a few different ways in an attempt to deal with the facts of history and not compromise their belief in the inspiration of the Quran. In general I have heard four different ways that Muslims deal with this issue. I will list them one by one and show why each one fails to account for the historical evidence.

1. The passion story was completely made up but people were deceived and believed Jesus was crucified. Jesus was never on the cross and he eventually ascended to Allah.

This is by far the hardest view for a Muslim to defend. This view ignores very large amounts of historical evidence that Jesus died by way of crucifixion. This suggests that four biographies which were written within 70 years of the life of Jesus were completely wrong on one of the most important facts of his life. One may dispute certain details of the gospels and those can be dealt with at a different time, but for one to disregard such early sources as just completely wrong is not intellectually honest.

The evidence for the burial of Jesus is also ignored by this view. One of the well established facts of history is that Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimethea. One can have confidence in this due to the fact that it would have been very difficult to make something like this up and get away with it. Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore makes it very unlikely that this story was fabricated due to the fact it could have been easily falsified. Therefore, if Jesus was never crucified and Jesus never died, then who was buried in the tomb of Arimethea? (This hints at a more popular view that Muslims hold that I will discuss later.)

This first view not only disregards the early attestation of Jesus' death by crucifixion from the Gospels but also denies the early non-biblical accounts. Both Tacitus and Josephus mention Jesus being Crucified. These are very early historical sources that support that which the canonical gospels hold to, which is that Jesus was crucified.

2. "Jesus' soul ascended to Allah prior to Jesus dying on the cross."

I also find this view weak because it only solves part of the problem. See the view is that Allah took Jesus' soul and therefore it was not the cross that killed Jesus. However, this means that Jesus still suffered humiliation on the cross something Muslims claim Allah would never allow his prophets to go through.

As already mentioned there is good historical evidence for the burial of Jesus. In this view I suppose one would have to believe that the body that was buried was the "soulless" body of Jesus. This second view tries to explain how Jesus was able to avoid death on the cross but does not account for the evidence of the empty tomb.

See one of the other major well supported facts of history is that Jesus' tomb was empty on the Sunday following his crucifixion. One of the evidences of this is that women were the ones who found the empty tomb. If this story were fictional, the author of Mark would not have had women finding the empty tomb. The testimony of women in that day was not looked at as very credible and therefore if the author of Mark's gospel were going to make a story such as this one up he surely would have had a man and more likely a very well known man such as Peter or John find the empty tomb first.

Another reason for belief in the empty tomb is that the earliest claim by those opposed Jesus and his followers was that the disciples stole the body. A stolen body equals an empty tomb.

The final evidence I will mention for the empty tomb is the fact that no one presented the body of Jesus in order to end this early "Jesus movement" by his disciples. Had the Jewish or Roman leaders presented the body of Jesus Christianity as we know it would have never existed, but they didn't and the best explanation for why they didn't is that the tomb was empty.

3. The swoon theory. Jesus never actually died on the cross.

Both view #2 and view #3 have to go against the straight forward meaning of text in the Quran by saying that what Sura 4:157 means is that Jesus did not die by crucifixion but that the text still allows for Jesus to have been hung on the cross. It seems to me that this goes against what the Quran is actually saying. However, putting that issue aside this view still ignores good historical evidence that suggests that Jesus actually did die.

In John's gospel in the 19th chapter and the 34th verse we read what appears to be a eye-witness account which says, "But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water." Aside from this sounding like an eye-witness account, history also tells us that this was something that was practiced by soldiers of that time.

Another issue that seems to really kill the swoon theory is that even if Jesus had survived, although I think this notion goes against the evidence, he would not have been a very convincing Messiah. We must keep in mind that Jesus' resurrection was an event that started a very rapid spread of the "Jesus movement" which later became known as Christianity. Had Jesus some how survived the cross, he would have been in no shape to convince his followers that he had conquered death.

4. The Substitution Theory. Someone was on the cross in his place.

The substitution theory is the most common theory among Muslims. Many Muslims believe that it was actually Judas who was being crucified in Jesus' place. However, if it were someone else in Jesus' place one must still account for why the tomb was empty. As I have already stated, the historical evidence suggests that Jesus' tomb was empty that Sunday following the crucifixion. If someone else was in Jesus' place, one still has to explain the empty tomb.

The substitution theory also fails to account for the post-mortem appearances. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 gives a list of different people at different times in different places who all saw Jesus after his death. Some were believers and some were skeptics, but what is for sure is that their lives were dramatically changed after they saw him. These appearances cannot be accounted for by the substitution theory.

There are four facts of history that I believe have very large amounts of evidence to support them in dealing with the resurrection:

1. Jesus was killed by way of crucifixion.
2. Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.
3. Jesus' tomb was empty on the Sunday following his crucifixion.
4. Jesus' followers believed that they saw him alive after he had already died.

The best conclusion from the evidence is that Jesus was crucified and that He was risen again from the dead. This should come a comfort to those who read this because it is Christ's resurrection who gives us hope that we too will be resurrected one day.

Does God Blot Out Christians from His Book of Life?

2009-05-29T07:21:00.000-07:00

Among the many theological debates that take place today that Christians argue about passionately is the doctrine known to many as the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, or “once saved always saved”. Many times when people are trying to suggest that Christians can lose their salvation, the person will often refer to the blotting out of names in the Lamb’s book of life mentioned in the book of Revelation. I would like to take a moment and look at some of the verses that are discussed in the Lamb’s book of life to try and answer the question “Does God blot out Christians from His Book of Life?”

“The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.” (Rev. 3:5)

Here God is saying “the one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of Life”. This verse clearly states that those who endure will NOT be blotted out. This verse does not directly state that anyone will be blotted out of the book of life.

“and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.” (Rev. 13:8)

In this verse we see that the names that are absent from the book of life were left out “before the foundation of the world”. There is no indicator in this verse that tells us that names are blotted out.

“The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come.” (Rev. 17:8)

Here we see those whose names were not written from before the foundation of the earth will be/ were (depending on your eschatological view) marveled by the beast of Revelation. Once again there is no sign of blotting any names out of the book of life.

“And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.” (Rev. 20:12)

This verse states that “the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done” but this verse says nothing about names having been blotted out of the book of life.

“And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:15)

All this verse tells us is that those whose names were not found in the book of life were thrown into the lake of fire.

And the final verse in the book of Revelation that speaks of the book of Life says…

“But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.” (Rev. 21:27)

From this verse we gather that only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Still, this verse like the others before it says nothing of names being blotted out.

I would hope that from this we can agree that if these verses are read and understood in their plain meaning, there is no reason to believe that God blots Christians out of his book of life. However, if one looks at the Old Testament we do see a couple of references to blotting out of God’s book. These references take place in a conversation between God and Moses. The Israelites had made a calf and were worshipping it.

“But now, if you will forgive their sin--but if not, please blot me out of your book that you have written.” But the LORD said to Moses, "Whoever has sinned against me, I will blot out of my book.” (Exodus 32:32-33)

In this passage Moses is asking God to forgive the people but if He won’t, Moses asks that he would be blotted out of God’s book instead. Now if we notice this passage makes reference to a book of God but does not specifically say that this book is the book of life. Which would make sense because would Moses really be willing to spend eternity in hell apart from God for the rebellious people? This would not be considered a godly action on his part to put his people over his desire to spend eternity with God. The answer is the book being discussed here is not the Lamb’s book of Life but it is a different book.

We get a better indication of what kind of book this is by reading the context. In verse 33 God rejects Moses’ request and we see in verse 35 that the Lord sent a plague on the people. This book is one that deals with physical life, not spiritual. Moses was offering up his life for the life of his friends, which unlike the previous scenario, is a godly act (John 15:13).

So the question remains, what books are being discussed in this passage in the book of Exodus? For a look at a possible explanation we will look at a passage in the Psalms.

“Let them be blotted out of the book of the living; let them not be enrolled among the righteous.” (Psalms 69:28)

Here the psalmist is asking for God to kill those who oppose him. The psalmist is referring to physical life and is not referring to Heaven or Hell. The book in this passage is called the book of the living, not the book of life.

In conclusion I would like to suggest that the book of the living was the book which was being spoken of in Moses’ conversation with God. Therefore, we find no biblical reference of God blotting out Christians from the book of life, which might indicate the possibility of one losing their salvation. We do however find biblical passages referring to people being blotted out of the book of the living but always found in reference to physical life and physical death.

The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is a biblical one (1John 2:19, John 6:37, John 10:28) and the references to blotting out in the scriptures are perfectly consistent with this doctrine.

Do the Gospels have the Original Teachings of Jesus?

2009-05-14T07:27:00.000-07:00

I was recently reading Judas and the Gospel of Jesus by N.T. Wright and I came across a note he made that I found very interesting. N.T. Wright suggests that while the “gospels were shaped, in part, by the needs of the emerging church”, we should not be so quick to believe that this is the only purpose they were written for. Wright goes on to say something that I believe is often over looked by liberal critics of the gospels:

There is far too much historical coherence, and far too significant an absence of other themes which should have been included had that been the driving force, for that theory to hold. An obvious example is that topic of circumcision: we know that it as one of the fiercest and most difficult controversies in the early church, but nobody ever thought to invent a “saying of Jesus” which addressed it.

Here I think N.T. Wright makes a great point! If over the years especially early on in church history people did not care about preserving the true and authentic teachings of Jesus then one would expect that many more issues that were being debated would be addressed by “sayings of Jesus” that were added in at a later point in time. Now this isn’t to suggest that nothing has slipped into the New Testament that was not there originally, but these later additions can be spotted by careful textual criticism.

I am also not trying to suggest that somehow this one point proves that all of the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament are 100% authentic, however I do think that many times people want to be overly critical of the reliability of the New Testament gospels and often over look little details like this one which should be considered.

The Resurrection of Jesus

2009-04-11T04:52:00.000-07:00

Being that Easter Sunday is only a day away I felt it appropriate to take a moment and discuss the topic of the resurrection of Jesus. I recently was having a discussion with a fellow student at Florida Atlantic University and he asked me “What if God does exist? What would make Christianity any different than any other religion?” I suggested to him that Christianity gives us a way of testing it to see if it is really true. The Apostle Paul, the writer of the majority of the documents in the N.T. suggests that if Jesus has not been raised from the dead or faith is futile. I went on to suggest to the student I was speaking with that Christianity makes huge claims with huge implications if it is true. I ended our conversation by suggesting he really investigate the historicity of the resurrection.

Scholars such as N.T. Wright, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. J.P Moreland, and Michael Licona have dedicated much of their academic careers to studying the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. They have written numerous books and articles about the resurrection and its surrounding details. Usually in their presentations or articles these men will pick a few of the historically established details such as the empty tomb, the crucifixion, the post-mortem appearances, etc. to build a case for the resurrection of Jesus. They will also go on to show how no current naturalistic explanations can account for all of the historically established details. However I will take a slightly different approach in this blog for the sake of length and for the sake of emphasizing something that I would like for everyone to consider this Easter Sunday.
I believe one of the most convincing facts of the resurrection is the way that it affected the lives of those who claimed to have witness the risen Jesus. Even the evidence that can be examined on this one topic alone is extensive, such as how Paul who was a persecutor of the early Christians became a Christian himself after Jesus appeared to him. One can also look at the life of James, the brother of Jesus, who was a skeptic of Jesus during his ministry but became a Christian as well when Jesus appeared to him. These two men had dramatic experiences that changed their lives significantly and one must be able to account for this. However, for the sake of this blog I would like to focus on the affect the post-mortem appearances of Jesus had on the Twelve Disciples.

Eleven of the Twelve Disciples were martyred for their belief in a risen savior. Now one may say “People die for their beliefs every day, especially religious beliefs.” And in a post 9-11 world we in America now know just how true this is. However, it is important that we do not overlook a significant difference between the people who die in the name of their religion today as opposed to the disciples who died back then. A Muslim who hijacks a plane and flies it into the side of a building truly believes that he is doing the right thing and that he will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. This Muslim has no way of being certain that this is what is going to happen but he believes it is what will happen. Even a Christian today who is martyred believes he or she has the hope of an afterlife because of their belief in Jesus as the Christ and his resurrection, but even the Christian cannot be 100% certain that they are right. Yet I suggest to you that the disciples were in a very different situation.

The earliest Christians were not claiming that they simply had faith that they would go to heaven if they died, they were claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and that they saw him after the fact! It was this claim that they were being killed for. The disciples not only BELIEVED that Jesus rose from the dead they were in a position to KNOW whether or not Jesus had been raised from the dead. This leaves us with two options:

1. The disciples knew that Jesus had been killed but did not want to admit that he was dead, so they made up a story about him being raised from the dead. They were so committed to their lie that they even died for it knowing that they had no hope in that which they were giving their lives for. Notice this explanation still does is not sufficient for the transformation in the lives of Paul and James, but for the sake of this blog this is one option.

2. That the disciples really did see Jesus from the dead, therefore were willing to give their lives because they knew they had a hope in a risen savior.

As I mentioned above, this is by no means the extent of the argument for the resurrection but I think it is a significant part of it that we should all wrestle with.

Intelligent Design: Lucidity or Stupidity

2009-04-09T14:12:00.000-07:00

On April 2, 2009 an event entitled “Intelligent Design: Lucidity or Stupidity” took place on the campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida. This event was the fourth Consider the Evidence event (ConsiderTheEvidence.com for more information) that the Christian students had put on at FAU in the span of two and a half years. This year’s presenter was Dr. Tim Anstine (TimAnstine.com). Dr. Anstine received his Ph.D. in organic chemistry from the University of Nevada Reno. Following graduation, he accepted a post-doctoral fellowship at UC Berkeley, in photo organic chemistry. He is currently Chair of the Department of Chemistry at Northern Nazarene University in Boise, Idaho.

Dr. Anstine presented for 45 minutes. His presentation was followed by 30 minutes of question and answer. The question and answer period was very interesting because one of the people in attendance that evening was Dr. Rob McCarthy, an assistant professor at FAU in the anthropology department. Dr. Anstine and Dr. McCarthy both were excellent examples on how two individuals with two very different conclusions can discuss the facts in a very civil manner.
Perhaps the biggest moment of the evening was the second discussion that took place between Dr. Anstine and Dr. McCarthy. Dr. McCarthy said that although he still doesn’t believe I.D. is science, he was glad that he came to the event and that he even “learned something”. Although, Dr. McCarthy made it clear that in his opinion I.D. is not scientific, it was still great to see these two very intelligent men exchange ideas and even find common ground on some areas.

After the event I came and asked Dr. Anstine to please explain something for me. From the presentation and information I gathered from the Q & A session it seems to me that it was suggested that the inference of a designer is not scientific as we define science today. Dr. Anstine explained this to me in a very helpful way. This is what we observe in everyday life:

1) Sender (Rational Being, in this case Miguel)
2) Message (Rational Code, in this case the message I’m writing)
3) Medium (Language, in this case English or the letters I am typing)
4) Receiver (Rational Being, in this case the reader of this blog)

This is the way we see things work in the natural world. Now this is where it gets tricky with I.D.

1) Sender (Designer, this cannot be inferred scientifically)
________________________________________________
2) Message (Rational Code, DNA)
3) Medium (Language, amino acids)
4) Reciever (Rational Being, Scientist)

2 through 4 is what can be studied under the modern definition of science. Now Dr. Anstine made clear to me that this is not to suggest that use logic and reason to make the inference of a Designer, this inference however would not be a scientific one.
This was new to me, being that I had not heard this explanation from some of the other ID scientists that I’ve studied. However, Dr. Anstine’s explanation made good sense to me and I do not question Dr. Anstine’s study of the field. As one could imagine, as an interdisciplinary major in the social sciences I was initially quite frustrated with the idea that one cannot infer a designer scientifically because it simply goes beyond the limits of science. However, after further thought I’d like to make two comments in closing:

1) I think it is very important that if science is going to be defined in such a way that a scientist can detect design, study design but not infer a designer scientifically, we must remain consistent in our definition of science. When I think of common decent one may suggest that we can look at genetics or the fossil record to arrive at this conclusion. However, this inference seems to fall into the same category as the inference of a designer. I would also like to suggest that the big bang falls into the same category as well. Neither of these two events, the first original one celled organism and the big bang, can be recreated in a lab and played out completely. Therefore it is not repeatable. I would ask that the scientific community be consistent in its assessment of what is scientific and what is outside of the scope of science.

2) Next I would like to suggest that the question of God’s existence and the investigation of Christianity is an interdisciplinary study. Let science speak as far as science can speak, but let us not be limited by that. Science is not the only way to know things. Let us use anthropology, history, logic, psychology, philosophy, and sociology to investigate the most fundamental questions in life. As rational beings let us gather the evidence and make the best conclusion from the evidence.

My Thoughts on FAU's Origins Symposium

2009-03-31T21:09:00.000-07:00

On March 26, 2009 Florida Atlantic University hosted a symposium event entitled “Who We Are And How We Came To Be: Perspectives On Our Origin.” This symposium consisted of a panel with eight guest speakers, each representing a different perspective on the topic of origins. The perspective included a Seminole Indian, Hindu, Zen Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Haitian Voodoo, and Science (Anthropology). Each speaker was given twelve minutes to present their perspective and each speaker was asked to discuss “Where did we come from?” “What is our current state?” and “Where are we going?” The symposium was being moderated by Professor Simon Glynn who is a professor of philosophy at Florida Atlantic University.

Dr. Robert McCarthy opened the evening with a few opening remarks. McCarthy stated that there are two main reasons why Intelligent Design should not be taught in the class room. The first reason he gave was that “Intelligent Design is not science”. He said he would expand on that later although he never properly characterized Intelligent Design and therefore it was hard to distinguish whether Dr. McCarthy really believes that I.D. is not science or if simply his idea of what I.D. consists of is not science. The second reason given by Dr. McCarthy as to why I.D. should not be taught in the classroom was “The Judeo-Christian God is favored as the designer”. I will comment more on this reasoning when I address Dr. McCarthy’s actual presentation.

The first speaker of the night was Everret Osceola, who was presenting the Seminole Indian perspective. Mr. Osceola serves as an educator for the Ah-tah-thi-ki museum in Clewiston, Florida. Mr. Osceola shared how one of the fundamental beliefs of the Seminole people is that everything needs to be in perfect balance. He shared how the Seminole people have different creation stories and how it is common belief among themselves that they used to be able to communicate with animals. Mr. Osceola also shared the Seminole’s belief in a spiritual realm and how there are spirits all around us.

Mr. Osceola’s presentation was an interesting one although it was very different from the others. In his defense, Mr. Osceola was the first speaker and therefore did not have any idea what the other presentations were going to be like. One major difference between Mr. Osceola and the rest of the speakers that evening was that he did not seem to actually believe the perspective on origins that he was representing. Therefore his presentation was not so much of an argument for his perspective but rather it was more of a presentation on the Seminole culture. Not to say that this presentation was not valuable, as it was and I enjoyed hearing it, it just seemed to be very different from the others.

The second speaker to present was Smeeta Vimal Patel. Ms. Patel was presenting the Hindu perspective. Ms. Patel shared how for Hindus time is not linear but rather that time is a continuum. She also mentioned how the Hindu estimation of the age of the Sun is very close to the estimation given to us by the majority of Scientists today. According to Ms. Patel the Hindu belief is that the Creator and the Creation are not separate but rather are the connected in a “Greater Consciousness”. The example she gave to explain this was a wave and the ocean. While a wave is in a sense a separate entity from the ocean, it eventually returns back into the ocean and is simply a part of the ocean. Ms. Patel also suggested that the Hindu view of human evolution is very similar to that of Charles Darwin’s theory.

While Ms. Patel’s presentation was very informative and she seemed to be very knowledgeable in her religion and its perspective, there were certain statements made that I think need to be answered. For example, the idea that time is a continuum rather than linear, how does one make sense of this? My first thought is that this clearly goes against the majority view of science and philosophy because the overwhelming consensus is that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Now I am not suggesting that just because the majority of scientists and philosophers say something that it then has to be true, however I am suggesting that if there is a consensus among scholars of the field, then great evidence must be presented in order to suggest they are all wrong and she simply did not do that. My second issue with this view of time is that if it had no beginning how does one deal with an infinite number of events prior to today? If an infinite number of events occurred prior to today, we would never actually arrive at today. Now, I am not a philosopher so I won’t take this very far, but I do think what I have stated makes sense and I do suggest the objection needs to be answered.

The next speaker was Carlos Montero representing the Zen Buddhist perspective. Carlos Montero is senior Dharma teacher and director of the South Florida Zen Group. Mr. Montero is a high school chemistry professor in Miami Dade County. Mr. Montero’s presentation was very interesting. He suggested that humans make time and space. He also went on to say that everything appears and disappears every moment, which he supported by suggesting that by touching a desk he is transferring some of his cells on to the desk and that desk will never again be the same as it was prior to him touching it. Mr. Montero’s main point was simply to say “nobody knows”.

Mr. Montero was very comical and entertaining in his presentation. However, many times trying to establish a basis for truth with someone like Mr. Montero is like trying to nail jello to a wall. He suggested the most important thing is to realize “we do not know” and to understand this “not knowing”. The question “how do you know that we can’t know?” remained unaddressed.

Following Mr. Montero was Rabbi David Steinhardt representing the Jewish perspective. Rabbi Steinhardt is the senior Rabbi at one of the leading conservative synagogues in the nation. He also received his Master’s degree in Hebrew literature from the Jewish Theological Seminary. Rabbi Steinhardt stated that in Judaism there is no unity of theology but rather “an ongoing conversation”. He also suggested that ultimately God could not be known. Rabbi Steinhardt ended his presentation by stating simply that he was not sure where the world is going.

I would say that I am certain that my Jewish people would have been very troubled by Rabbi Steinhardt’s representation of their perspective. Rabbi Steinhardt sounded very much like a relativist during his presentation and even during the Q & A session. One would have to hear more on what Rabbi Steinhardt actually believes in order to comment further.

The fifth speaker of the night was Dr. Paul Copan, representing the Christian perspective. Dr. Copan is the the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach. He is the author of several books, including Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical and Scientific Exploration, and he is the editor of The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion and Philosophy of Religion: Classic and Contemporary.

Dr. Copan covered three main points in his presentation. He discussed origins, the human condition, and Jesus of Nazareth as the solution to the human condition. Dr. Copan suggested that Genesis 1:1 is an absolute beginning which is consistent with modern cosmology. He also stated that “humans are not cosmic accidents”. Dr. Copan went on to discuss how the human condition is one that is rebellion against God and that Jesus is the answer to that condition.

Dr. Copan supported his belief in Jesus as the answer to the human condition by giving a few historical facts that are accepted by a majority of scholars that serve as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The four facts Dr. Copan gave were: 1. Jesus was crucified and buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. 2. That the tomb was empty on the following Sunday. 3. That Jesus’ disciples and closes followers had saw appearances of Jesus. 4. That people’s lives were radically changed by the appearances of Jesus. He then gave support for each of his points as his time ended.

As one of the Christians involved in getting Dr. Copan on this panel I was very pleased with the way that he represented the Christian perspective. Dr. Copan made good sound arguments and there is no doubt that the students in the room took notice.

Following Dr. Copan was Imam Radwan Kouatli, representing the Muslim perspective. Mr. Kouatli is founder of the Love God Institute and is representing the Islamic Center of Boca Raton. He opened up his presentation by suggesting that one can simply look around and infer design. He gave the example of a tool and how it has been designed and suggested that then one can look at us and ask “who made us?” Mr. Kouatli also said that people cannot be brought into existence or have evolved through naturalistic process.

Aside from Dr. Copan and Dr. McCarthy, Mr. Kouatli did the best job of laying out what he believed and why he believed it. While his design arguments may have been too simplistic for some, I think in a sense it captures the heart of the Intelligent Design argument which is “Can we infer a designer from our observations of nature?”

The seventh speaker of the evening was Margaret Armand, representing the Haitian Voodoo perspective. Ms. Armand is a voodoo priestess who is a licensed psychotherapist. While Ms. Armand had a nice presentation it was difficult to understand her at times because of her heavy accent. Ms. Armand suggested that it was a woman who created earth and that we are surrounded by spirits of our ancestors. She said that these spirits can poses our bodies and have the ability to predict the future and to heal. She also said that people belong wherever they are and that one must be open minded.

In her presentation Ms. Armand had a slide up that had the name of a God named “YEWE”. Unfortunately, she ran out of time in her presentation and could not go into any kind of detail about this deity. I am very curious to find out more about “YEWE” being that there is obviously a striking similarity to “YHWH” name of the Judeo-Christian God.

The eighth and final speaker was Dr. Robert McCarthy, representing the science perspective. Dr. Robert McCarthy is an assistant professor in FAU’s department of anthropology. Although Dr. McCarthy is very respected in his field of anthropology and he obviously has a say in the matter as an expert on human evolution I was surprised by one of the first statements he made. Dr. McCarthy stated that science cannot answer the “how” or the “why” we came to be. He suggested that science can only answer the “who”, “where” and “when”. Dr. McCarthy also made the point that God could not be tested by the scientific method. Aside from this Dr. McCarthy had a presentation on the different hominins (or hominids) and briefly described human evolution.

I was very surprised that Dr. McCarthy, at an origins symposium he helped put together, simply passed over the question of the origin of life by simply suggesting that science cannot answer it. It was also worth noting that Dr. McCarthy’s powerpoint presentation that presented a tree of human evolution was filled with mostly question marks on it. And finally Dr. McCarthy’s point that God could not be tested by the scientific method was in a sense inferring that we simply couldn’t know if God exists or not. However, I think it is important to remember that the scientific method is not the only we can know something to be true. I actually liked Mr. Kouatli’s response to this where he suggested that a man can truly love his wife, but that can’t be proven by the scientific method.

During the Q & A session Dr. Copan and Dr. McCarthy stole the show as a large number of the questions were directed at them. Overall this was a great event and I am definitely glad that I was able to be in attendance. It is important to have these kinds of events so that we can continue to challenge each other and so that the evidence can be laid out so that the truth may be known.

Increasing Discussion About Intelligent Design

2009-03-14T11:09:00.000-07:00

Several things have taken place in the last couple of years that are really beginning to increase the amount of discussion surrounding the Intelligent Design controversy. Leading ID proponents such as Michael Behe, Doug Axe, Stephen Meyer, and others continue to do research in their areas of expertise in order to continue to evaluate the evidence and encourage others to begin to look at both sides of the ID discussion. The Movie Expelled was released into theaters and is now on dvd. This documentary gave people a look into some of the prejudices that exist against not only proponents of intelligent design, but actually of those scientists who even question the sufficiency of Darwinian processes to account for the way things are in our world today.

Perhaps most interesting of all in the latest events surrounding Intelligent Design is a debate that took place in 2008. This debate featured four men, two were against Intelligent Design, while the two others were Intelligent Design proponents. One may ask, “Ok, a debate on ID, what is so noteworthy about that?” Well, the two men who were in favor of studying the possibility of ID were an atheist and agnostic. One of the men defending ID was Professor Bradley Monton who is a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Much of Professor Monton’s work has been done in the area of philosophy of physics. The other man involved in that debate in defense of intelligent design was David Berlinski. Dr. Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University. Neither one of these men is a theist, but they both do believe that ID has something to offer and more discussion needs to take place on the issue.

Along the lines of intelligent design, Florida Atlantic University has been having an art exhibition entitled “Designing Intelligence? Continuing the Intelligent Design Project”. As well as having an art exhibition that has been ongoing since January and will run until April, the University has also held a number of lectures and events dealing with the issue. The art gallery contains art that mocks the idea of intelligent design and some of the speakers have included philosophers, anthropologists and others from various disciplines to discuss intelligent design, or more specifically the problems with intelligent design. The next event that will be held in conjunction with the art gallery is going to take place on March 26, 2009 in room PA 101 and is entitled “Who We Are & How We Came to Be: Perspectives on Our Origin”. This is a symposium that will contain speakers from various religions and academic disciplines explaining their groups perspectives on our origin. I would like to also mention in particular one speaker that I am glad we were able to get on the panel of speakers, Dr. Paul Copan from Palm Beach Atlantic University, who will be representing the Christian perspective on the matter. I encourage all who are able to come and check it out!

Finally, in response to the ongoing events at FAU the Christian students on campus along with the help of The Youth Leadership Development Project have invited a guest speaker to also discuss the topic of Intelligent Design on April 2, 2009 in room SO 250. The guest speaker will be Dr. Tim Anstine who received his Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Nevada. Dr. Anstine is also a professor of chemistry at Northwest Nazarene University. The event is called “Intelligent Design, Lucidity or Stupidity: A Scientific Assessment”. Students will have the opportunity to listen to Dr. Anstine’s presentation as well as engage him in a Q&A session afterwards. Students will then be able to eat free pizza and talk to one another on their thoughts of that evening’s presentation. I encourage everyone to come out regardless of where you stand on the issue of intelligent design, I think we can all agree that the most important thing is that we keep on discussing the evidence and letting it lead us where it may.

It is a very exciting time if you are proponent of Intelligent Design and it will be interesting to see how the scientific community continues to respond to it as more research continues to be done.

How Will They Know That We Are His Disciples?

2009-02-24T16:07:00.000-08:00

Sociologist Rodney Stark offers in his book The Rise of Christianity, reasons why Christianity rose to be the huge world religion that it is today. In this book Stark offers reasons such as the role of women, martyrs, organization, and doctrine, as well as others as reasons why Christianity rose to what it is today. However, one reason that Stark gives I find very thought provoking. One of the main reasons Stark gives for the rise of Christianity is how Christians responded to each other in times when plagues were destroying populations.

In his book Stark quotes a letter by Dionysius from around 260 A.D. that reads:

Most of our brother Christians showed unbounded love and loyalty, never sparing themselves and thinking only of one another. Heedless of danger, they took charge of the sick, attending to their every need and ministering to them in Christ, and with them departed this life serenely happy; for they were infected by others with disease, drawing on themselves the sickness of their neighbors and cheerfully accepting their pains. Many, in nursing and curing others, transferred their death to themselves and died in their stead....The best of our brothers lost their lives in this manner, a number of presbyters, deacons, and laymen winning high commendation so that death in the form, the result of great piety and strong faith, seems in every way the equal martyrdom (Stark 82).

Stark also goes on to quote more from Dionysius's letter that speaks of how the heathens mistreated others and took on a selfish mentality at this time (Stark 83). As I remember reading this for the first time the words that continually came to mind were "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). I found it absolutely amazing that here is a sociologist who is studying the rise of Christianity and that he observed that it was the Christians' love for one another that actually helped them survive its infancy stage as a religion.

All this brings me to my point which is, if Christians were to be studied and observed today, would the sociologist doing the research come to the same conclusion as Rodney Stark did about the early Christian church? Would we be noticeably different from the rest of the world by our love for one another? While one can hardly compare our living conditions in this recession to those living in the times of the plagues that struck during Christianities early years, one can still ask what are we doing for each other as Christ's disciples? Are we acting like a family that belongs to one Father? Or are we acting like the "heathens" that keep to themselves lest they too be caught up by the hard times and have to sacrifice from themselves because of others?

Citation: Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity. HarperCollinesPublishers: New Jersey:
1996.

My Story

2009-02-24T15:48:00.000-08:00

I was in my sophomore year of college, in my last semester at the community college, and I was taking a biology class that was a requirement in order to graduate with my A.A. and move on to the University. I knew this meant I was going to be learning about evolution and I knew this also meant that I would be learning about evolution from a Darwinian framework. Well, it turns out that my biology professor was not only going to teach Darwinian evolution, but he was also going to give us his opinion on religion, Christianity more specifically.

My professor went on to claim that Christianity is a bunch of “hocus-pocus”. He even claimed that there was no evidence that Jesus even existed as person. What any of this had to do with BIOLOGY I am still not sure about, but nevertheless these were the kind of statements that my biology professor would sprinkle in during his lectures. Finally, one day after class in which he had really mocked Christianity I was deeply troubled. I felt as though my ideas and my beliefs were caving in on me. I had been a Christian since I was 13 years old and all of a sudden some of the ideas I held did not seem to be consistent with the evidence. I approached my professor after class one day and confronted him about the remarks he made toward Christianity. We got nowhere, but he did tell me that he believed that religions were responsible for all the wars that were going on today and that he strongly believed that humans would be better off without religion. At the time I did not have the ability to think through such a statement by my professor and see the fallacy in his argument.

After my conversation with my professor that day I decided that if Christianity is true then I should be able to investigate its claims and find it to be true. If it was not true then it would not matter if I came to that conclusion as well. Since then I have dedicated myself to studying, both in school and on my own, subjects such as evolution, creationism, history, old testament, new testament, ancient texts, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, and various religious studies in order to see if the Christian worldview stands up under scrutiny. I have studied material produced by both sides and continue to do so to this day. I have seen time and time again that the Christian worldview just seems to make the most sense out of this world that we are living in. I can confidently say that I know with confidence that Jesus Christ has come, died and risen from the grave in order to offer the way of salvation. I hope that through this blog we can exchange ideas and continue to examine those questions that are most important to us.