As the wheels locked into place and the plane banked to the right as it climbed through the clouds, the middle-aged man across the isle from me asked the attractive women seated next to him, “So where do you call home, sweetheart?”
Attractive women: “I’m working out of Saskatoon but my home is Heaven.”
Silence.
:-)
I used to have a list of all the references in the Bible describing us as aliens and strangers on earth.
Grrrr - can’t find it. Yet this woman was correct. All of us are just passing through. I’ve been assigned a task to complete during my brief stay on earth and when it’s finished, I’m going home.
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bible. Show all posts
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Science > A Search for Cause
When a bridge collapses.
When a person misses an appointment without calling
When someone goes from being an atheist to a Christian
We all ask “Why?”
It's perfectly normal for us to ask "Why?" for the things we experience and observe. Science itself, is, at its base, a search for cause, or the asking of the question, “Why are things as we find them?”
There are several historical events that are related to the life of Jesus that require and answer. These events require of us to ask, “Why would that be?”
Absolutely none of what you’re about to read has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars.
The reason that I’m not using the documents that were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament is of course, atheists have a double standard when it comes to judging ancient documents. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. These guys weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in the history of humanity.
While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true.
In a manner of historical forensics, this post asks, “Why would the following have occurred if the facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection weren’t as described?” I believe that there is no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred (and they did occur) unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
Rather than just skim over these questions or dismiss them as the ramblings of some no account Christian, I ask you to ask yourself in a genuine manner, the questions that follow. Even if you assume that an answer upholds your current beliefs, I encourage you to name the answer. Put it into coherent thought. Whether you agree or don’t agree with the conclusion at which I’ve arrived, for the sake of your ability to debate the issue, ask yourself in frank and honest manner:
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
Why would Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud, Josephus, and John Dominic Crossan, the Founder of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians?
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus?
. Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.
. Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
. Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”
. Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus."
. Why would atheist and founder of the Jesus Seminar state, “That Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” if Jesus wasn’t a historical figure?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?
. Why would they say that they spoke with Him?
. Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?
. If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive?
There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.
REMEMBER these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie.
Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen?
Remember, Paul:
. Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
. Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.
This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead?
. Why would they claim that they had seen Him alive after His death?
. Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?
. Why would Jesus whole family become part of the Christian movement?
Think about it! This was their half-brother, someone that they’d previously mocked and ridiculed. James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.
For a moment, put yourself in James' place. What would it take for you to make this kind of change? What would it take for you to die for that change? For me, it would take nothing LESS than a resurrection.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.
Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn't historical fact?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why was His tomb empty?
. Jesus’ ENEMIES were the ones to CONFIRM that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.
. The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.
. Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.
. The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than dogs and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ brother James, his leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. I think they would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have an early oral tradition or creed that dates from the first year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?
Think about it! Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn't have this.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus? This was an “outsider” eager to kill the leaders of the early Jesus movement, now coming to them with a knowledge of Jesus’ teaching equal to those who had been insiders.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that "lie" with their lives.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story.
Peter watched his own wife being crucified just prior to his own crucifixion. Surely, if the risen Jesus was a lie concocted by Peter himself, he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen.
Without the resurrection, this type of behaviour doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
. Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
. Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred?. Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the historicity of Jesus and the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
. Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and - Pay attention now -
. Why did Tacitus, an ENEMY of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked, for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
. Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
These questions, stemming from this evidence demand more than just a flippant, “People rising from the dead is impossible.” Something totally “other” happened back then and ignoring it is not a rational nor a logical thing to do.
If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict. With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, you can do one of three things:
. Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour - Or
. Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything - Or
. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”
When a person misses an appointment without calling
When someone goes from being an atheist to a Christian
We all ask “Why?”
It's perfectly normal for us to ask "Why?" for the things we experience and observe. Science itself, is, at its base, a search for cause, or the asking of the question, “Why are things as we find them?”
There are several historical events that are related to the life of Jesus that require and answer. These events require of us to ask, “Why would that be?”
Absolutely none of what you’re about to read has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars.
The reason that I’m not using the documents that were later compiled into what we now know as the New Testament is of course, atheists have a double standard when it comes to judging ancient documents. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. These guys weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in the history of humanity.
While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true.
In a manner of historical forensics, this post asks, “Why would the following have occurred if the facts of Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection weren’t as described?” I believe that there is no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred (and they did occur) unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
Rather than just skim over these questions or dismiss them as the ramblings of some no account Christian, I ask you to ask yourself in a genuine manner, the questions that follow. Even if you assume that an answer upholds your current beliefs, I encourage you to name the answer. Put it into coherent thought. Whether you agree or don’t agree with the conclusion at which I’ve arrived, for the sake of your ability to debate the issue, ask yourself in frank and honest manner:
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
Why would Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud, Josephus, and John Dominic Crossan, the Founder of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians?
If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus?
. Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.
. Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
. Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”
. Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus."
. Why would atheist and founder of the Jesus Seminar state, “That Jesus was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be” if Jesus wasn’t a historical figure?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?
. Why would they say that they spoke with Him?
. Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?
. If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive?
There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.
REMEMBER these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie.
Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen?
Remember, Paul:
. Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
. Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.
This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
. Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead?
. Why would they claim that they had seen Him alive after His death?
. Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?
. Why would Jesus whole family become part of the Christian movement?
Think about it! This was their half-brother, someone that they’d previously mocked and ridiculed. James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.
For a moment, put yourself in James' place. What would it take for you to make this kind of change? What would it take for you to die for that change? For me, it would take nothing LESS than a resurrection.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.
Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn't historical fact?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why was His tomb empty?
. Jesus’ ENEMIES were the ones to CONFIRM that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.
. The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.
. Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.
. The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than dogs and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?
If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ brother James, his leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. I think they would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have an early oral tradition or creed that dates from the first year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?
Think about it! Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn't have this.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus? This was an “outsider” eager to kill the leaders of the early Jesus movement, now coming to them with a knowledge of Jesus’ teaching equal to those who had been insiders.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that "lie" with their lives.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?
If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story.
Peter watched his own wife being crucified just prior to his own crucifixion. Surely, if the risen Jesus was a lie concocted by Peter himself, he wouldn’t have allowed that to happen.
Without the resurrection, this type of behaviour doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
. Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
. Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius were both martyred?. Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the historicity of Jesus and the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.
Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.
If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
. Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
. Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and - Pay attention now -
. Why did Tacitus, an ENEMY of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked, for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
. Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?
Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.
Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.
These questions, stemming from this evidence demand more than just a flippant, “People rising from the dead is impossible.” Something totally “other” happened back then and ignoring it is not a rational nor a logical thing to do.
If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict. With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, you can do one of three things:
. Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour - Or
. Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything - Or
. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Humility and the Disappearance of Self
Some mistake humility as an effort to be less than others or a race for last place. Paul’s admonition to think of others as better than yourself can be misinterpreted in this manner. In reality, humility comes solely from knowing ourselves though the eyes of God. Treating others in a deferential manner is an outflow of that.
We are obsessed with who we are in our eyes. We most often base our worth on the ebb and flow of world opinion. We strive for beauty and power and position. We measure ourselves by worldly accomplishments. Depending on how others see us causes us to place our very security on things that cannot save. It causes us to place our source of pride on things that may be worthless tomorrow.
However, Biblical humility literally means to empty ourselves of ourselves. It means to become so strong, so free from worldly concerns that anything other than who we are in Christ is of no consequence at all.
We are obsessed with who we are in our eyes. We most often base our worth on the ebb and flow of world opinion. We strive for beauty and power and position. We measure ourselves by worldly accomplishments. Depending on how others see us causes us to place our very security on things that cannot save. It causes us to place our source of pride on things that may be worthless tomorrow.
However, Biblical humility literally means to empty ourselves of ourselves. It means to become so strong, so free from worldly concerns that anything other than who we are in Christ is of no consequence at all.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Is This a Straw Man?
Christians believe, and the Bible says, that Creator God (who is Spirit) brought everything material into existence out of nothing.
The Standard Big Bang Model says that everything material came into existence out of nothing, but the model doesn't / can’t yet say Why or How.
Atheists do not believe in God but they do believe in and trust the scientific model of inquiry - or so they say when it suits their argument :-)
If the BB model is correct, then atheists believe or at least accept that everything came from nothing by nothing.
Of course atheists don’t say this explicitly but it's implicit in the following atheist beliefs:
. No God exists - Do atheists say this or not?
. Nothing Supernatural exists - Do atheists say this or not?
. I only accept what has been determined by science - Do atheists say this or not?
What has been determined by science? The best evidence to date (back ground radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, expanding universe etc. etc) points to:
. Standard Model: Everything existed after the Singularity - 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
. Standard Model: Nothing existed prior to the Singularity; no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no laws of physics.
. Consistently Observed: Nothing begins to exist without an external cause (You, me, machines, buildings, clothes, art, music, galaxies, stars, the universe, even your little brown turds). Everything that begins to exist has a cause that is external to itself.
. Scientifically Obvious: The universe began to exist.
Most atheists accept that the universe contains everything material that exists.
Most atheists accept that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Even Hume wouldn't say something so stupid as that something can begin to exist without a cause.
If just before Everything material existed, Nothing material existed, and if everything that begins to exist has an external cause, then atheists are saying that Nothing caused Everything to come into being.
Now, how is that a Straw Man? OR is there something that atheists believe that is being left unspoken? And if so, what?
The Standard Big Bang Model says that everything material came into existence out of nothing, but the model doesn't / can’t yet say Why or How.
Atheists do not believe in God but they do believe in and trust the scientific model of inquiry - or so they say when it suits their argument :-)
If the BB model is correct, then atheists believe or at least accept that everything came from nothing by nothing.
Of course atheists don’t say this explicitly but it's implicit in the following atheist beliefs:
. No God exists - Do atheists say this or not?
. Nothing Supernatural exists - Do atheists say this or not?
. I only accept what has been determined by science - Do atheists say this or not?
What has been determined by science? The best evidence to date (back ground radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, expanding universe etc. etc) points to:
. Standard Model: Everything existed after the Singularity - 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
. Standard Model: Nothing existed prior to the Singularity; no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no laws of physics.
. Consistently Observed: Nothing begins to exist without an external cause (You, me, machines, buildings, clothes, art, music, galaxies, stars, the universe, even your little brown turds). Everything that begins to exist has a cause that is external to itself.
. Scientifically Obvious: The universe began to exist.
Most atheists accept that the universe contains everything material that exists.
Most atheists accept that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Even Hume wouldn't say something so stupid as that something can begin to exist without a cause.
If just before Everything material existed, Nothing material existed, and if everything that begins to exist has an external cause, then atheists are saying that Nothing caused Everything to come into being.
Now, how is that a Straw Man? OR is there something that atheists believe that is being left unspoken? And if so, what?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Dawkins Does Standup
The more that I read atheist Richard Dawkins the more convinced I am that he, in many, many places is attempting to inject levity into his bile spewing books. Seriously! I think this guy is trying to rehearse for some future Standup Comedy Routine. I want to touch on just a couple examples.
The first is, Dawkins complains that he finds the Bible to be disjointed.
Ha! Do you get it? “The Bible appears disjointed!” No? Well, he is British after all. Their humour is a bit off for those of us in North America. But it’s still pretty funny if you’ve had enough coffee. I mean, the Bible is a collection of sixty-six (66) documents, written over a period of a thousand years. It was written by people like fishermen, tent-makers, kings, shepherds, doctors and tax collectors and some very strange prophets. They were written when these people were gloriously happy and desperately sad. They were written just after victory and just after defeat. Yes the prophecies are miraculous and the connections to Jesus from Genesis to Revelation are cohesive and awe inspiring, but Dawkins is unable to even know that thread exists.
So here we have Richard Dawkins attempting to shatter Christianity’s foundations by proclaiming, [The Bible is] “a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjoined documents” I mean, c’mon, that observation has to be a joke. Ok, so maybe it’s not his best stuff, but still . . . How about this?
In one of his books, Dawkins does this schtick where he pretends to be God. In the “God Delusion,” Dawkins is talking about how Theologians claim the ability to interpret the Bible and he says (I’ll do it in a low, booming God-like voice)
“They cannot get away with it!”
Isn’t that good? Priceless really. Richard Dawkins is talking to those most skilled in their specialty, not his specialty, not someone else’s craft but their specialty and he in effect says,
“I won’t allow it!” I’m putting my foot down on what Theologians can and cannot say about the Bible.”
While grandiosity has always been a charge levelled at atheists, this bit of humour on the part of Dawkins really does take it to a whole new level. A hilarious level if you will. Terry Eagleton, in his review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion, states, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”
Still not convinced that Richard Dawkins is trying to be a comedian? Check this out.
Atheists have been complaining about the bad press that they’ve been getting over the last - um, forever. For some reason, people tend to see them as arrogant, raging, prideful and aloof. Because of that, atheists have been looking to their fearless leaders for some tips on turning this around. What’s Dawkins’ solution? Get ready now ‘cause this really is funny. Dawkins says,
“Let’s go out into the world and publically identify ourselves Brights!”
C’mon now, even if you’re the most miserable atheist that has ever evolved, you have to admit, That’s Funny! I mean, have you ever wondered what kind of a person needs other people to think of h/himself as a Bright (it means intelligent - specifically, more intelligent that you)? And what kind of a person publicly calls himself that in order to project a more humble, softer, more pleasing and acceptable exterior no less? To send the message that atheists aren’t those who look down their noses on others, Richard Dawkins says to his followers, “Tell them, “I’m a Bright, and you’re not.””
Don’t tell me he didn’t mean that as a joke. Or perhaps he means that the joke is on his atheist followers. After all, once you become as cynical as Richard Dawkins, it becomes almost impossible to differentiate on whom you confer your cynicism. Just ask the three people who’ve been married to him.
. So here we have this man who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know that he doesn't have the right to dictate to scholars what they can and cannot say about their own field of study.
. Here we have Richard the Great telling his followers to do the very thing that will make non atheists think even less of sceptics than they already do.
. Here we have someone pretending to be a historical scholar who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know the difference between symbolic and literal phrases in the Bible. He even seems to not be able to differentiate between metaphor, irony, or hyperbole. Really, if Richard Dawkins can’t say, this is where a poem ends and a moral directive begins, if he can’t understand that a political diatribe just can’t be mixed with romantic literature, and if finding these variations in genre within the same book comes off as disjointed and difficult to understand for him, then perhaps he should simply stick to biology and leave the Bible completely alone.
Why should he do this? Because the Bible has nothing to say to Richard Dawkins. The Bible is for spiritual seekers. It is not for those who mock and deride those humble enough to admit that they need help
The first is, Dawkins complains that he finds the Bible to be disjointed.
Ha! Do you get it? “The Bible appears disjointed!” No? Well, he is British after all. Their humour is a bit off for those of us in North America. But it’s still pretty funny if you’ve had enough coffee. I mean, the Bible is a collection of sixty-six (66) documents, written over a period of a thousand years. It was written by people like fishermen, tent-makers, kings, shepherds, doctors and tax collectors and some very strange prophets. They were written when these people were gloriously happy and desperately sad. They were written just after victory and just after defeat. Yes the prophecies are miraculous and the connections to Jesus from Genesis to Revelation are cohesive and awe inspiring, but Dawkins is unable to even know that thread exists.
So here we have Richard Dawkins attempting to shatter Christianity’s foundations by proclaiming, [The Bible is] “a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjoined documents” I mean, c’mon, that observation has to be a joke. Ok, so maybe it’s not his best stuff, but still . . . How about this?
In one of his books, Dawkins does this schtick where he pretends to be God. In the “God Delusion,” Dawkins is talking about how Theologians claim the ability to interpret the Bible and he says (I’ll do it in a low, booming God-like voice)
“They cannot get away with it!”
Isn’t that good? Priceless really. Richard Dawkins is talking to those most skilled in their specialty, not his specialty, not someone else’s craft but their specialty and he in effect says,
“I won’t allow it!” I’m putting my foot down on what Theologians can and cannot say about the Bible.”
While grandiosity has always been a charge levelled at atheists, this bit of humour on the part of Dawkins really does take it to a whole new level. A hilarious level if you will. Terry Eagleton, in his review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion, states, “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”
Still not convinced that Richard Dawkins is trying to be a comedian? Check this out.
Atheists have been complaining about the bad press that they’ve been getting over the last - um, forever. For some reason, people tend to see them as arrogant, raging, prideful and aloof. Because of that, atheists have been looking to their fearless leaders for some tips on turning this around. What’s Dawkins’ solution? Get ready now ‘cause this really is funny. Dawkins says,
“Let’s go out into the world and publically identify ourselves Brights!”
C’mon now, even if you’re the most miserable atheist that has ever evolved, you have to admit, That’s Funny! I mean, have you ever wondered what kind of a person needs other people to think of h/himself as a Bright (it means intelligent - specifically, more intelligent that you)? And what kind of a person publicly calls himself that in order to project a more humble, softer, more pleasing and acceptable exterior no less? To send the message that atheists aren’t those who look down their noses on others, Richard Dawkins says to his followers, “Tell them, “I’m a Bright, and you’re not.””
Don’t tell me he didn’t mean that as a joke. Or perhaps he means that the joke is on his atheist followers. After all, once you become as cynical as Richard Dawkins, it becomes almost impossible to differentiate on whom you confer your cynicism. Just ask the three people who’ve been married to him.
. So here we have this man who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know that he doesn't have the right to dictate to scholars what they can and cannot say about their own field of study.
. Here we have Richard the Great telling his followers to do the very thing that will make non atheists think even less of sceptics than they already do.
. Here we have someone pretending to be a historical scholar who is either not able to know, or who is pretending to not know the difference between symbolic and literal phrases in the Bible. He even seems to not be able to differentiate between metaphor, irony, or hyperbole. Really, if Richard Dawkins can’t say, this is where a poem ends and a moral directive begins, if he can’t understand that a political diatribe just can’t be mixed with romantic literature, and if finding these variations in genre within the same book comes off as disjointed and difficult to understand for him, then perhaps he should simply stick to biology and leave the Bible completely alone.
Why should he do this? Because the Bible has nothing to say to Richard Dawkins. The Bible is for spiritual seekers. It is not for those who mock and deride those humble enough to admit that they need help
Monday, October 5, 2009
Science Refined by Theology
"The [Old Testament] was not composed in response to cosmological discoveries as an attempt to force an agreement between theology and cosmology. Theology presents a fixed view of the universe. Science, through its progressively improved understanding of the world, has come to agree with theology."
Gerald Schroder, "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible" (New York: Bantam Books, 1990) 91, 160
Gerald Schroder, "Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible" (New York: Bantam Books, 1990) 91, 160
Monday, September 21, 2009
Bible Contradiction V
While displaying ignorance in multiple areas, atheists demonstrate this deficiency frequently in their description of Biblical “contradictions.” What is a contradiction? A simple definition comes to us from Stanley Jevons’ Elementary Lessons in Logic, says: “Nothing can both be and not be” (1928, p. 117).
Zedge said it!
Rab said, “I heard Zedge say, “No, we do not know what didn't cause it.””
TAM said, “I heard Zedge say, “I'll be closer to the truth than you.””
RAB and TAM can’t both be right. Or can they?
Zedge's comment - “No, we do not know what didn't cause it. You are obviously under the false impression that we know all there is to know about the laws of physics. You say that the big bang could not have been “matter or anything natural under the "command" of the laws of physics.” Well guess what; we ain't that smart yet! We have not figured out all the laws of physics , that by no means indicates that some heretofore unknown laws of physics are not at work! I can't prove that any more than you can prove the supernatural. I bet that given time though; I'll be closer to the truth than you.”
Maybe you can understand it but when atheists run into a similar problem in the Bible, they cry, "Contradiction! Contradiction! These two authors don't match in their stories and that means that the Bible can't be trusted."
Matthew 14:21 / Mark 6:44;
Zedge said it!
Rab said, “I heard Zedge say, “No, we do not know what didn't cause it.””
TAM said, “I heard Zedge say, “I'll be closer to the truth than you.””
RAB and TAM can’t both be right. Or can they?
Zedge's comment - “No, we do not know what didn't cause it. You are obviously under the false impression that we know all there is to know about the laws of physics. You say that the big bang could not have been “matter or anything natural under the "command" of the laws of physics.” Well guess what; we ain't that smart yet! We have not figured out all the laws of physics , that by no means indicates that some heretofore unknown laws of physics are not at work! I can't prove that any more than you can prove the supernatural. I bet that given time though; I'll be closer to the truth than you.”
Maybe you can understand it but when atheists run into a similar problem in the Bible, they cry, "Contradiction! Contradiction! These two authors don't match in their stories and that means that the Bible can't be trusted."
Matthew 14:21 / Mark 6:44;
Bible Contradiction IV
While displaying ignorance in multiple areas, atheists demonstrate this deficiency frequently in their description of Biblical “contradictions.” What is a contradiction? A simple definition comes to us from Stanley Jevons’ Elementary Lessons in Logic, says: “Nothing can both be and not be” (1928, p. 117).
The Decent Drug Dealer
Adam: One of the nicest people that I’ve ever met was this guy, Evan. I went to highschool with him. He was kind, and generous and helpful in class. He went into the electrical business with his dad right out of highschool.
Julie: I know an Even who said that he went into the electrical business with his dad right out of highschool. Of course it’s been thirty years ago since he graduated. I met him in rehab just a couple months ago. He’d be dealing meth. and crack. He’d lost his business and family and home. He’s getting back on his feet but he was really messed up.
Could it be the same Evan? Atheists say, "No Way!"
Genesis 6:9 / Genesis 9:21.
The Decent Drug Dealer
Adam: One of the nicest people that I’ve ever met was this guy, Evan. I went to highschool with him. He was kind, and generous and helpful in class. He went into the electrical business with his dad right out of highschool.
Julie: I know an Even who said that he went into the electrical business with his dad right out of highschool. Of course it’s been thirty years ago since he graduated. I met him in rehab just a couple months ago. He’d be dealing meth. and crack. He’d lost his business and family and home. He’s getting back on his feet but he was really messed up.
Could it be the same Evan? Atheists say, "No Way!"
Genesis 6:9 / Genesis 9:21.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Sal and Slavery
I’ve tried to avoid this topic. As unbearable as atheists are on subjects like origins, they’re even worse when it comes to things like slavery in the Bible. Their imaginations run loose and their feigned outrage cause them to exaggerate and fabricate to an extent that seems to know no bounds when it comes to the topic of slavery in the Bible. Why do I say their outrage is not genuine? Because, if you'll remember, atheists don't believe in God. They don't really believe that any of this actually took place. "I don't believe in God, but I'm furious that He commanded the Israelites to take slaves." Pfft!
What follows is from a discussion between John Loftus and another couple. For the life of me I can’t find the site from which this was taken. Loftus of course makes comments that are easily as nonsensical as Sal’s. I give it to you as I found it. If you are willing to read with an open mind and not in a spirit of challenging what you read before you’ve read it all, you might, might gain a proper perspective. Personally? I don’t hold out any hope for education as the mass of bigotry and bias among atheists in this area is as dense as a black hole.
It is often affirmed, as an incontestable and obvious truth, that the Bible supports slavery. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong cites Leviticus 25:44 as evidence of this charge in “Why Traditional Theism is not an Adequate Foundation for Morality.”1. [1] Although Armstrong is not the alone in making this claim, I think the charge is mistaken; the Bible does not support slavery.
This claim was refuted by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, one of the founding texts of contemporary liberal political theory. Locke was a famous English philosopher, less known is that Locke was also the author of several commentaries on scripture and the First Treatise of Civil Government was essentially a class argument from scripture against the divine right of kings. In the Second Treatise, Locke argued that the law of nature, which for Locke is the law of God, forbids a person selling themselves or another into slavery.[2]
In response to the line of argument Armstrong cites, Locke responded with
I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.[3]
Locke’s argument here is as follows,
[1] If a person is a slave then that person is “under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”[4]
[2] The institution referred to in scripture that people could sell themselves into, was not one where they were “under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power.”
The conclusion Locke draws from [1] and [2] is that the institution scripture refers to is not slavery. Locke’s response here is interesting and fundamentally correct. Here I want to simply elaborate on it in more detail so I will address each premise in turn.
What is Slavery?Central to Locke’s argument is his definition of slavery and understanding of what makes slavery wrong. Locke understands the state of slavery as,
[1] If a person is a slave then that person is “under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”
Rodney Stark utilises a similar definition,
A slave is a human being who, in the eyes of the law and custom, is the possession, or chattel, of another human being or of a small group of human beings. Ownership of slaves entails absolute control, including the right to punish (often including the right to kill), to direct behaviour, and to transfer ownership.[5]
The Oxford Dictionary gives a similar definition; a slave is defined as a “person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, human chattel.”[6] Timothy Keller notes correctly that the English word ‘slave’ carries connotations of new-world slavery as it was practiced in the British Empire, made infamous in the antebellum southern states of the US.[7] It is this paradigm that critics of scripture tend to allude to. John Loftus, for example, cites an eyewitness description of antebellum practices and then links it slavery in the Bible,
He took her into the kitchen, and stripped her from neck to waist. He made her get upon the stool, and he tied her hands to a hook in the joist. After rolling up his sleeves, he commenced to lay on the heavy cow skin, and soon the warm, red blood came dripping to the floor … No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose. The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there he whipped longest. He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush; and not until overcome by fatigue, would he cease to swing the blood clotted cowskin.
Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?[8]
In the British Empire and in many US states, slavery was governed under the Code of Barbados. This code was explicitly racist and described Africans as “heathenish, brutish, and an uncertaine, dangerous kinde of people.”[9] It allowed owners to use, “unlimited force to compel labor without penalty even if this resulted in maiming or death;”[10] It denied slaves due process rights, allowed owners to, in effect, kill their slave for any cause, forbade slaves from marrying and effectively, prevented owners from setting their slaves free.[11] Keller writes that, “The African slave trade was begun and resourced through kidnapping.”[12] Stark notes that “20 to 40 percent of slaves died while being transported to the coast, another 3-10 percent died while waiting on the coast, and about 12 to 16 percent boarded on ships died during the voyage.”[13]
Does the Old Testament Approve of Slavery?
Armstrong argues that “the bible contains some horrible passages about slavery;”[14] to substantiate this he cites from the English Standard Version, "as for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations around you." (Lev 25:44) [15]
The ESV here uses the English word ‘slavery’ to translate the Hebrew word ebed. An important initial observation is that ebed is the noun form of the verb abad which means ‘to work’ or ‘to serve.’ Ebed does not have the same semantic range as the contemporary word ‘slave;’ Freedman notes,
The word ebed however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank.[16]
Locke suggests that an examination of The Torah’s references to an ebed shows that, in fact, it is not the equivalent of what in English language and culture is referred to with the word ‘slave.’ I noted above that Locke’s second premise was,
[2] The institution referred to in scripture that people could sell themselves into, was not one where they were “under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power.”
I will give four examples to demonstrate why I think Locke is correct.
First, an ebed was not acquired by kidnapping; kidnapping a human being and selling them as a slave was a capital offence in The Torah (Ex 21:16). Moreover, slave trading is implicitly condemned in the book of Revelation (Rev 18:13) and explicitly condemned by Paul as contrary to the law and sound doctrine (1 Tim 1:9-10). An ebed is used in The Torah to refer to a person who offers to work for another, free of charge, in exchange for a debt being cancelled. During service the ebed worked for and served another, lived in that person’s house and probably received free food and board.
Second, the institution was not based on racist notions that ebed were of an inferior race. In fact, the opposite is affirmed. In the book of Job we read,
If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves [Hebrew: ebed amah] when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:13-15
Here Job refers to an ebed as having a right to go to court and sue their “owner” in pursuit of their rights. Job bases this on the idea that both he and his ebed are equal; both are created by God.
Third, as Locke notes, an ebed was not the property of another so that they could dispose of them as they saw fit. To deliberately kill an ebed is a capital offence (Ex 21:20-21). Similarly, it was illegal to strike an ebed (Ex 21:26-27). This latter point is often denied on the basis of Exodus 21:20-21,
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Some interpret this passage to mean that because a slave is the property of another they can severely beat the slave and providing the beating is not fatal, there is no punishment. This fails to deal adequately with the context and the Hebrew text; the word translated as ‘property’ here is actually ‘silver’ (a reference to money) and the word translated ‘punishment’ here is not the usual word for punishment. Christopher Wright notes that the word implies “the shedding of the blood of the master of the slave”[17] and so refers to capital punishment. It is used in direct contrast with the same word in the previous verse where it is stated that deliberately killing an ebed is to be avenged. Therefore it does not say the person will not be punished for beating a slave, it says he will not be executed for it unless he kills the slave. For further evidence that the passage is not a licence to beat, a couple of verses later even causing a minor injury on an ebed, such as a bruise, is explicitly condemned.
The same contrast occurs in the passage immediately preceding where a free man who struck and killed another was to be “held responsible” but not if the person survives. It is clear from v 19, however, that the person was in fact to be punished; hence, again, the ‘held responsible’ is referring only to being held responsible for murder and is not speaking to the lesser charges. What Ex 21:20-21 says then, is that if a person deliberately kills their ebed then they are to be held responsible for murder and executed. If the slave if the slave “gets up after a day or two,” they are not to be held responsible for murder because the ebed is their “silver.”
This makes sense when a few verses later, in Ex 21:26-27, striking a slave is explicitly prohibited and the legal punishment is for the ebed to go free. In The Torah, the penalty for assault was for the assailant to provide monetary compensation to the victim.[18] This would create a quandary in this case as an ebed is in a position of servitude because he or she is in debt to the person they work for. In such a case the assailant would owe money to a person who owes him money. The Torah resolves the issue by declaring that even a trivial strike (such as the causing a bruise 21:25) resulted in an immediate cancelation of the ebed’s entire debt, which would often result in a financial loss to the assailant.
Third, unlike new world slavery which was life long and where, under the Barbados code, emancipation was effectively prohibited, an ebed could not be held in service for more than six years (Exodus 21:2).[19] Upon release, their employer was morally required to give them sufficient resources for them to be set up on their own feet (Deut 15:12-18) and the community left resources for them to live on for a year (Ex 23:10-11, Lev 25:2-7). In fact, The Torah encouraged people to prevent family members from becoming an ebed by paying their debts for them (Lev 25:48). Paul, after writing to the Corinthians and encouraging them to “retain the place in life that the Lord assigned,” encourages slaves to purchase their freedom and not to remain in this position (1 Cor 7:21-22).
Finally, if an ebed fled from an oppressive employer it was illegal to return him or her to “his master,” instead he or she was to live, “wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses” (Deut 23:15-16). It was forbidden to send him or her back to his owner. This law stood in stark contrast the Ancient Near Eastern legal customs of the day.[20] The code of Hammurabi, for example, proscribed the death penalty for receiving a runaway slave.[21] In the antebellum south, the Fugitive Slave Act 1850 required the return of run-away slaves at penalty of law.
It seems then that Locke’s response is fundamentally correct. While it is true that many English translations of the bible use the word slavery to translate the word ebed it is mistaken to see the two institutions as the same. Slavery refers to the state of being the property or chattel of another; regardless of what connotations various words in English translations have, the institution referred to in scripture did not permit, condone or allow this.
Some people ask, why wasn’t God crystal clear on this issue since people suffered horrendously at the hands of Bible quoting masters?”
Well, even if you interpret “ebed” as “slave” as Hodge did, God WAS crystal clear in scripture about not beating them, not killing them, not threatening, the fact they were entitled to due process rights, must be released after six years and so on; in other words, to NOT treat them as property to be disposed of as one sees fit. Hence, to suggest that the Bible is unclear on the kind of suffering inflicted on the US southern slaves is false.
Another question that is asked is, “If there is a perfectly good God who knows us like he does and could foreknow how we humans would misuse the Bible, then why didn’t he reveal himself to us better than he did? There are many things in the Bible which led his followers to kill and hurt people that upon human hindsight could’ve been stated better.”
This is an incoherent argument. Knowledge constitutes of a warranted and true belief. If God foreknew that people would misuse the Bible then it must be true that they would, but then God could not prevent them doing so, if he did then it would not be true that they would in which case he would not know it.
===============
Given that slaves had the same basic rights as men, even if it were correct that women were treated like slaves, there should not be a great problem with it. Slaves could not be raped or forcibly married; it is clear from many passages stated above that the only difference between the rights of slaves and men is that one owed money and had consented to work that debt off.
In the passages condemning assault, homicide, etc there are NO exceptions made for women – the fact there are not, that women were treated equally, was actually controversial given the surrounding, non-Christian, cultures.
Some suggest that women were made to marry their rapist. Those passages do not mean rape in the sense anti-theist would like it to mean. They refer to pre-marital seduction – consensual sex - where the woman concerned was quite happy to marry the man she was sleeping with (not surprising given the risk of pregnancy in a pre-contraceptive culture).
If a man raped a woman in the sense to which anti-theists are referring to he was to be executed. This is a better standard for women than the laws that exist against rape today in most industrialised countries.
By the moral standards laid out for the treatment of slaves in the Bible, anyone unlucky enough to get h/himself into debt and could not manage that person could do a lot worse than being an indentured servitude program where s/he got a roof and board and a chance to work the debt off and where that person’s debt could be cancelled if the person I was in debt to mistreated the slave, than being sent to prison for failure to pay h/her fines.
================
Rab and others say things like, Please oh please tell us why God didn't condemn it plainly if he foreknew what sincere believers would think about slavery from the Bible. If I were god this is what I would've said: 'Owning a person as property or treating them inhumanely is an abomination. Forced slavery is an abomination. Beating employees is a sin.' This is what I would've said if I were God, and I'm not perfect unlike your God."
This resembles the question:
When did you stop beating your wife?
Of course you can’t give a direct answer to this question because the question assumes you are a wife-beater and you are not.
In the same way, when an anti-theist asks why God does not condemn the beating of slaves or treating them inhumanely or forcing people into slavery, we are being asked to assume that scripture does NOT condemn these things. That, however, is incorrect.
Scripture does condemn these things. Most atheists who ask this question know that the harsh treatment of slaves is clearly condemned but are too dishonest to make this known in what they write on the subject.
However, just to reinforce what’s already been said, I will cite from the King James Version (KJV) which was widely available in the antebellum US South. The citations I provide are straight from the KJV, one does not need to know Greek or Hebrew to read them. Moreover, despite the fact that the KJV translates the word “ebed” as “servant” I shall also assume, for the sake of argument, that southern theologians were correct and that the word “ebed” refers to slavery.
Here are some of the things the scriptures say about beating slaves, treating them as property, inhumanely etc:
Ex 21: 14 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
This passages states that forcing someone into slavery is a serious sin, punishable at law.
Consider these two passages:
Ex 21:23-26 "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE for his tooth's sake."
Does that sound like the American south to you?
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant WHICH IS ESCAPED from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: THOU SHALT NOT OPPRESS HIM."
The first verse teaches that it is wrong to beat one's “slave” and that a slave that is beaten by a master should be liberated. The second teaches that a slave that runs away from an oppressive master should not be returned to him. Both then state that a person should not be held in bondage to a master that beats and abuses them.
Ephesians 5: 7-9 "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
This is a command to not even “threaten” one's slave, it also commands people to treat their slaves the way they would like to be treated.
So I put to you, that when you cite an example of “brutal American slavery,” of a woman being whipped, of her bleeding and pleading for the beating to stop, and then, in this context ask why God did not condemn slavery, you are assuming the scriptures did not condemn such practices.
Even defenders of slavery, such as Charles Hodge, admitted what was going on in the south was contrary to scripture.
Again John, I ask, show me a passage where God permits, endorses or commands the practices you describe on p 231 of your book? Where he tells us to ignore the ones I cite? If you cannot, why do you insinuate, on the very same page, that he did not?
================
Some might attempt to adopt a narrower definition of slavery and then use it to argue that, on that narrower definition the bible does not condemn all forms of slavery.
The problem with this move that you cannot now use the bible to argue that it supported the kind of slavery that existed in the antebellum south, nor can you argue that the bible supports the kind of slavery common in the new world. Nor can you use it to argue that it supports any obviously objectionable form of slavery. The conclusion that the bible supports some form of slavery does not entail it supports all forms or any particular form the sceptic cites.
Moreover, if this move is made it is no longer obvious that the bible supporting "slavery" is problematic. If the word "slavery" is expanded to include various different kinds of servitude. Including ones which are consensual, are used to pay of debts, the servants are not treated like property, not beaten, treated with dignity and respect etc etc. Then the claim that slavery is always wrong is no longer obvious.
====================
I believe it is Sal who uses this next passage to show his outrage over slavery. Luke 12:47-48, which states: "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
This passage does not teach that it’s permissible to beat ones slave. The text is from a parable designed to illustrate the point that “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Jesus illustrates it by citing an example from the surrounding culture in this the practise of a someone being beaten. The parable is no more about slavery than the parable of the sower is a lesson on gardening. Or that the parable of the vineyard is Jesus giving instructions on how to grow grapes. Or that the parable of the net is a lesson in fishing, or the parable of the good Samaritan is a command to travel from Jerusalem to Jericho. Can you understand that Sal? This is NOT a teaching on how to treat slaves. It’s a parable.
In fact only a few verses earlier Jesus uses the example of burglar to illustrate a point about “being prepared. ” In Luke 12:39-40 Jesus says “ But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
Yet no sensible commentator has ever interpreted this passage to be a command from Jesus on how to rob houses.
Parables use images examples to illustrate points, what they teach are the points illustrated, they tell us nothing about the examples used.
=============
[1] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality” in Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism and Ethics eds Robert K Garcia and Nathan L King (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008) 101-116.
[2] John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government Ch IV.
[3] Ibid, sec 24.
[4] Ibid, sec 23.
[5] Rodney Stark For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the end of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003) 292.
[6] The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Oxford: Oxford Clarendon University Press, 1974 ) 5th Edition, 1199.
[7] Timothy Keller Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton books) 110.
[8] John Loftus Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (New York: Prometheus Books, 2008) 231. Many thanks to Dean Mischewski for gifting us a copy of Loftus's book.
[9] Stark For the Glory of God: 312-313.
[10] Ibid, 313.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Keller Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism 111.
[13] Stark For the Glory of God: 303.
[14] Sinnott-Armstrong “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality” 110.
[15] Armstrong omits to mention the previous passage which forbids any Israelite taking another Israelite as a ‘slave’ on the grounds that they are a “slave of God” whom God has redeemed. Paul applies the same teaching to Christians in 1 Corinthians 7:23 prohibiting Christians from being sold as ‘slaves.’ This teaching led many early and medieval theologians to forbid the enslavement of Christians resulting in slavery all but disappearing from Christian Europe in the early Middle Ages; Stark documents this in For the Glory of God: 329-330.
[16] D N Freedman Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group,1992).
[17] Christopher Wright God's People in Gods Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids Mi: Paternoster Press, 1990) 242.
[18] See Exodus 21:19.
[19] There is an apparent discrepancy between Exodus 21:1-6 and the release laws of Leviticus 25:39-43; Christopher Wright in God's People in Gods Land: 253, noted that the law in Exodus 21:6 refers to Hebrew slaves. Wright notes that in its original context the word ibri designated a social class, not an ethnic group. This was the class of people who did not own land, who survived by hiring themselves out to land owners. Lev 25, on the other hand, deals with an Israelite landowner who has been forced into poverty by mortgaging his land and then selling himself and his family into the service of another land owner.
[20] Wright God's People in Gods Land: 249.
[21] Code of Hammurabi 16.
What follows is from a discussion between John Loftus and another couple. For the life of me I can’t find the site from which this was taken. Loftus of course makes comments that are easily as nonsensical as Sal’s. I give it to you as I found it. If you are willing to read with an open mind and not in a spirit of challenging what you read before you’ve read it all, you might, might gain a proper perspective. Personally? I don’t hold out any hope for education as the mass of bigotry and bias among atheists in this area is as dense as a black hole.
It is often affirmed, as an incontestable and obvious truth, that the Bible supports slavery. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong cites Leviticus 25:44 as evidence of this charge in “Why Traditional Theism is not an Adequate Foundation for Morality.”1. [1] Although Armstrong is not the alone in making this claim, I think the charge is mistaken; the Bible does not support slavery.
This claim was refuted by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, one of the founding texts of contemporary liberal political theory. Locke was a famous English philosopher, less known is that Locke was also the author of several commentaries on scripture and the First Treatise of Civil Government was essentially a class argument from scripture against the divine right of kings. In the Second Treatise, Locke argued that the law of nature, which for Locke is the law of God, forbids a person selling themselves or another into slavery.[2]
In response to the line of argument Armstrong cites, Locke responded with
I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.[3]
Locke’s argument here is as follows,
[1] If a person is a slave then that person is “under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”[4]
[2] The institution referred to in scripture that people could sell themselves into, was not one where they were “under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power.”
The conclusion Locke draws from [1] and [2] is that the institution scripture refers to is not slavery. Locke’s response here is interesting and fundamentally correct. Here I want to simply elaborate on it in more detail so I will address each premise in turn.
What is Slavery?Central to Locke’s argument is his definition of slavery and understanding of what makes slavery wrong. Locke understands the state of slavery as,
[1] If a person is a slave then that person is “under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases.”
Rodney Stark utilises a similar definition,
A slave is a human being who, in the eyes of the law and custom, is the possession, or chattel, of another human being or of a small group of human beings. Ownership of slaves entails absolute control, including the right to punish (often including the right to kill), to direct behaviour, and to transfer ownership.[5]
The Oxford Dictionary gives a similar definition; a slave is defined as a “person who is the legal property of another or others and is bound to absolute obedience, human chattel.”[6] Timothy Keller notes correctly that the English word ‘slave’ carries connotations of new-world slavery as it was practiced in the British Empire, made infamous in the antebellum southern states of the US.[7] It is this paradigm that critics of scripture tend to allude to. John Loftus, for example, cites an eyewitness description of antebellum practices and then links it slavery in the Bible,
He took her into the kitchen, and stripped her from neck to waist. He made her get upon the stool, and he tied her hands to a hook in the joist. After rolling up his sleeves, he commenced to lay on the heavy cow skin, and soon the warm, red blood came dripping to the floor … No words, no tears, no prayers, from his gory victim, seemed to move his iron heart from its bloody purpose. The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped; and where the blood ran fastest, there he whipped longest. He would whip her to make her scream, and whip her to make her hush; and not until overcome by fatigue, would he cease to swing the blood clotted cowskin.
Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?[8]
In the British Empire and in many US states, slavery was governed under the Code of Barbados. This code was explicitly racist and described Africans as “heathenish, brutish, and an uncertaine, dangerous kinde of people.”[9] It allowed owners to use, “unlimited force to compel labor without penalty even if this resulted in maiming or death;”[10] It denied slaves due process rights, allowed owners to, in effect, kill their slave for any cause, forbade slaves from marrying and effectively, prevented owners from setting their slaves free.[11] Keller writes that, “The African slave trade was begun and resourced through kidnapping.”[12] Stark notes that “20 to 40 percent of slaves died while being transported to the coast, another 3-10 percent died while waiting on the coast, and about 12 to 16 percent boarded on ships died during the voyage.”[13]
Does the Old Testament Approve of Slavery?
Armstrong argues that “the bible contains some horrible passages about slavery;”[14] to substantiate this he cites from the English Standard Version, "as for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations around you." (Lev 25:44) [15]
The ESV here uses the English word ‘slavery’ to translate the Hebrew word ebed. An important initial observation is that ebed is the noun form of the verb abad which means ‘to work’ or ‘to serve.’ Ebed does not have the same semantic range as the contemporary word ‘slave;’ Freedman notes,
The word ebed however, denoted not only actual slaves occupied in production or in the household but also persons in subordinate positions (mainly subordinate with regard to the king and his higher officials). Thus the term ebed is sometimes translated as “servant.” Besides, the term was used as a sign of servility in reference to oneself when addressing persons of higher rank.[16]
Locke suggests that an examination of The Torah’s references to an ebed shows that, in fact, it is not the equivalent of what in English language and culture is referred to with the word ‘slave.’ I noted above that Locke’s second premise was,
[2] The institution referred to in scripture that people could sell themselves into, was not one where they were “under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power.”
I will give four examples to demonstrate why I think Locke is correct.
First, an ebed was not acquired by kidnapping; kidnapping a human being and selling them as a slave was a capital offence in The Torah (Ex 21:16). Moreover, slave trading is implicitly condemned in the book of Revelation (Rev 18:13) and explicitly condemned by Paul as contrary to the law and sound doctrine (1 Tim 1:9-10). An ebed is used in The Torah to refer to a person who offers to work for another, free of charge, in exchange for a debt being cancelled. During service the ebed worked for and served another, lived in that person’s house and probably received free food and board.
Second, the institution was not based on racist notions that ebed were of an inferior race. In fact, the opposite is affirmed. In the book of Job we read,
If I have rejected the cause of my male or female slaves [Hebrew: ebed amah] when they brought a complaint against me; what then shall I do when God rises up? When he makes inquiry, what shall I answer him? Did not he who made me in the womb make them? And did not one fashion us in the womb? (Job 31:13-15
Here Job refers to an ebed as having a right to go to court and sue their “owner” in pursuit of their rights. Job bases this on the idea that both he and his ebed are equal; both are created by God.
Third, as Locke notes, an ebed was not the property of another so that they could dispose of them as they saw fit. To deliberately kill an ebed is a capital offence (Ex 21:20-21). Similarly, it was illegal to strike an ebed (Ex 21:26-27). This latter point is often denied on the basis of Exodus 21:20-21,
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Some interpret this passage to mean that because a slave is the property of another they can severely beat the slave and providing the beating is not fatal, there is no punishment. This fails to deal adequately with the context and the Hebrew text; the word translated as ‘property’ here is actually ‘silver’ (a reference to money) and the word translated ‘punishment’ here is not the usual word for punishment. Christopher Wright notes that the word implies “the shedding of the blood of the master of the slave”[17] and so refers to capital punishment. It is used in direct contrast with the same word in the previous verse where it is stated that deliberately killing an ebed is to be avenged. Therefore it does not say the person will not be punished for beating a slave, it says he will not be executed for it unless he kills the slave. For further evidence that the passage is not a licence to beat, a couple of verses later even causing a minor injury on an ebed, such as a bruise, is explicitly condemned.
The same contrast occurs in the passage immediately preceding where a free man who struck and killed another was to be “held responsible” but not if the person survives. It is clear from v 19, however, that the person was in fact to be punished; hence, again, the ‘held responsible’ is referring only to being held responsible for murder and is not speaking to the lesser charges. What Ex 21:20-21 says then, is that if a person deliberately kills their ebed then they are to be held responsible for murder and executed. If the slave if the slave “gets up after a day or two,” they are not to be held responsible for murder because the ebed is their “silver.”
This makes sense when a few verses later, in Ex 21:26-27, striking a slave is explicitly prohibited and the legal punishment is for the ebed to go free. In The Torah, the penalty for assault was for the assailant to provide monetary compensation to the victim.[18] This would create a quandary in this case as an ebed is in a position of servitude because he or she is in debt to the person they work for. In such a case the assailant would owe money to a person who owes him money. The Torah resolves the issue by declaring that even a trivial strike (such as the causing a bruise 21:25) resulted in an immediate cancelation of the ebed’s entire debt, which would often result in a financial loss to the assailant.
Third, unlike new world slavery which was life long and where, under the Barbados code, emancipation was effectively prohibited, an ebed could not be held in service for more than six years (Exodus 21:2).[19] Upon release, their employer was morally required to give them sufficient resources for them to be set up on their own feet (Deut 15:12-18) and the community left resources for them to live on for a year (Ex 23:10-11, Lev 25:2-7). In fact, The Torah encouraged people to prevent family members from becoming an ebed by paying their debts for them (Lev 25:48). Paul, after writing to the Corinthians and encouraging them to “retain the place in life that the Lord assigned,” encourages slaves to purchase their freedom and not to remain in this position (1 Cor 7:21-22).
Finally, if an ebed fled from an oppressive employer it was illegal to return him or her to “his master,” instead he or she was to live, “wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses” (Deut 23:15-16). It was forbidden to send him or her back to his owner. This law stood in stark contrast the Ancient Near Eastern legal customs of the day.[20] The code of Hammurabi, for example, proscribed the death penalty for receiving a runaway slave.[21] In the antebellum south, the Fugitive Slave Act 1850 required the return of run-away slaves at penalty of law.
It seems then that Locke’s response is fundamentally correct. While it is true that many English translations of the bible use the word slavery to translate the word ebed it is mistaken to see the two institutions as the same. Slavery refers to the state of being the property or chattel of another; regardless of what connotations various words in English translations have, the institution referred to in scripture did not permit, condone or allow this.
Some people ask, why wasn’t God crystal clear on this issue since people suffered horrendously at the hands of Bible quoting masters?”
Well, even if you interpret “ebed” as “slave” as Hodge did, God WAS crystal clear in scripture about not beating them, not killing them, not threatening, the fact they were entitled to due process rights, must be released after six years and so on; in other words, to NOT treat them as property to be disposed of as one sees fit. Hence, to suggest that the Bible is unclear on the kind of suffering inflicted on the US southern slaves is false.
Another question that is asked is, “If there is a perfectly good God who knows us like he does and could foreknow how we humans would misuse the Bible, then why didn’t he reveal himself to us better than he did? There are many things in the Bible which led his followers to kill and hurt people that upon human hindsight could’ve been stated better.”
This is an incoherent argument. Knowledge constitutes of a warranted and true belief. If God foreknew that people would misuse the Bible then it must be true that they would, but then God could not prevent them doing so, if he did then it would not be true that they would in which case he would not know it.
===============
Given that slaves had the same basic rights as men, even if it were correct that women were treated like slaves, there should not be a great problem with it. Slaves could not be raped or forcibly married; it is clear from many passages stated above that the only difference between the rights of slaves and men is that one owed money and had consented to work that debt off.
In the passages condemning assault, homicide, etc there are NO exceptions made for women – the fact there are not, that women were treated equally, was actually controversial given the surrounding, non-Christian, cultures.
Some suggest that women were made to marry their rapist. Those passages do not mean rape in the sense anti-theist would like it to mean. They refer to pre-marital seduction – consensual sex - where the woman concerned was quite happy to marry the man she was sleeping with (not surprising given the risk of pregnancy in a pre-contraceptive culture).
If a man raped a woman in the sense to which anti-theists are referring to he was to be executed. This is a better standard for women than the laws that exist against rape today in most industrialised countries.
By the moral standards laid out for the treatment of slaves in the Bible, anyone unlucky enough to get h/himself into debt and could not manage that person could do a lot worse than being an indentured servitude program where s/he got a roof and board and a chance to work the debt off and where that person’s debt could be cancelled if the person I was in debt to mistreated the slave, than being sent to prison for failure to pay h/her fines.
================
Rab and others say things like, Please oh please tell us why God didn't condemn it plainly if he foreknew what sincere believers would think about slavery from the Bible. If I were god this is what I would've said: 'Owning a person as property or treating them inhumanely is an abomination. Forced slavery is an abomination. Beating employees is a sin.' This is what I would've said if I were God, and I'm not perfect unlike your God."
This resembles the question:
When did you stop beating your wife?
Of course you can’t give a direct answer to this question because the question assumes you are a wife-beater and you are not.
In the same way, when an anti-theist asks why God does not condemn the beating of slaves or treating them inhumanely or forcing people into slavery, we are being asked to assume that scripture does NOT condemn these things. That, however, is incorrect.
Scripture does condemn these things. Most atheists who ask this question know that the harsh treatment of slaves is clearly condemned but are too dishonest to make this known in what they write on the subject.
However, just to reinforce what’s already been said, I will cite from the King James Version (KJV) which was widely available in the antebellum US South. The citations I provide are straight from the KJV, one does not need to know Greek or Hebrew to read them. Moreover, despite the fact that the KJV translates the word “ebed” as “servant” I shall also assume, for the sake of argument, that southern theologians were correct and that the word “ebed” refers to slavery.
Here are some of the things the scriptures say about beating slaves, treating them as property, inhumanely etc:
Ex 21: 14 "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death."
This passages states that forcing someone into slavery is a serious sin, punishable at law.
Consider these two passages:
Ex 21:23-26 "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; HE SHALL LET HIM GO FREE for his tooth's sake."
Does that sound like the American south to you?
Deuteronomy 23:15-16 "Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant WHICH IS ESCAPED from his master unto thee: He shall dwell with thee, even among you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it liketh him best: THOU SHALT NOT OPPRESS HIM."
The first verse teaches that it is wrong to beat one's “slave” and that a slave that is beaten by a master should be liberated. The second teaches that a slave that runs away from an oppressive master should not be returned to him. Both then state that a person should not be held in bondage to a master that beats and abuses them.
Ephesians 5: 7-9 "Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."
This is a command to not even “threaten” one's slave, it also commands people to treat their slaves the way they would like to be treated.
So I put to you, that when you cite an example of “brutal American slavery,” of a woman being whipped, of her bleeding and pleading for the beating to stop, and then, in this context ask why God did not condemn slavery, you are assuming the scriptures did not condemn such practices.
Even defenders of slavery, such as Charles Hodge, admitted what was going on in the south was contrary to scripture.
Again John, I ask, show me a passage where God permits, endorses or commands the practices you describe on p 231 of your book? Where he tells us to ignore the ones I cite? If you cannot, why do you insinuate, on the very same page, that he did not?
================
Some might attempt to adopt a narrower definition of slavery and then use it to argue that, on that narrower definition the bible does not condemn all forms of slavery.
The problem with this move that you cannot now use the bible to argue that it supported the kind of slavery that existed in the antebellum south, nor can you argue that the bible supports the kind of slavery common in the new world. Nor can you use it to argue that it supports any obviously objectionable form of slavery. The conclusion that the bible supports some form of slavery does not entail it supports all forms or any particular form the sceptic cites.
Moreover, if this move is made it is no longer obvious that the bible supporting "slavery" is problematic. If the word "slavery" is expanded to include various different kinds of servitude. Including ones which are consensual, are used to pay of debts, the servants are not treated like property, not beaten, treated with dignity and respect etc etc. Then the claim that slavery is always wrong is no longer obvious.
====================
I believe it is Sal who uses this next passage to show his outrage over slavery. Luke 12:47-48, which states: "That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
This passage does not teach that it’s permissible to beat ones slave. The text is from a parable designed to illustrate the point that “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Jesus illustrates it by citing an example from the surrounding culture in this the practise of a someone being beaten. The parable is no more about slavery than the parable of the sower is a lesson on gardening. Or that the parable of the vineyard is Jesus giving instructions on how to grow grapes. Or that the parable of the net is a lesson in fishing, or the parable of the good Samaritan is a command to travel from Jerusalem to Jericho. Can you understand that Sal? This is NOT a teaching on how to treat slaves. It’s a parable.
In fact only a few verses earlier Jesus uses the example of burglar to illustrate a point about “being prepared. ” In Luke 12:39-40 Jesus says “ But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."
Yet no sensible commentator has ever interpreted this passage to be a command from Jesus on how to rob houses.
Parables use images examples to illustrate points, what they teach are the points illustrated, they tell us nothing about the examples used.
=============
[1] Walter Sinnott-Armstrong “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality” in Is Goodness without God Good Enough: A Debate on Faith, Secularism and Ethics eds Robert K Garcia and Nathan L King (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008) 101-116.
[2] John Locke Second Treatise on Civil Government Ch IV.
[3] Ibid, sec 24.
[4] Ibid, sec 23.
[5] Rodney Stark For the Glory of God: How Monotheism led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the end of Slavery (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003) 292.
[6] The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Oxford: Oxford Clarendon University Press, 1974 ) 5th Edition, 1199.
[7] Timothy Keller Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York: Dutton books) 110.
[8] John Loftus Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (New York: Prometheus Books, 2008) 231. Many thanks to Dean Mischewski for gifting us a copy of Loftus's book.
[9] Stark For the Glory of God: 312-313.
[10] Ibid, 313.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Keller Reasons for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism 111.
[13] Stark For the Glory of God: 303.
[14] Sinnott-Armstrong “Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality” 110.
[15] Armstrong omits to mention the previous passage which forbids any Israelite taking another Israelite as a ‘slave’ on the grounds that they are a “slave of God” whom God has redeemed. Paul applies the same teaching to Christians in 1 Corinthians 7:23 prohibiting Christians from being sold as ‘slaves.’ This teaching led many early and medieval theologians to forbid the enslavement of Christians resulting in slavery all but disappearing from Christian Europe in the early Middle Ages; Stark documents this in For the Glory of God: 329-330.
[16] D N Freedman Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group,1992).
[17] Christopher Wright God's People in Gods Land: Family, Land and Property in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids Mi: Paternoster Press, 1990) 242.
[18] See Exodus 21:19.
[19] There is an apparent discrepancy between Exodus 21:1-6 and the release laws of Leviticus 25:39-43; Christopher Wright in God's People in Gods Land: 253, noted that the law in Exodus 21:6 refers to Hebrew slaves. Wright notes that in its original context the word ibri designated a social class, not an ethnic group. This was the class of people who did not own land, who survived by hiring themselves out to land owners. Lev 25, on the other hand, deals with an Israelite landowner who has been forced into poverty by mortgaging his land and then selling himself and his family into the service of another land owner.
[20] Wright God's People in Gods Land: 249.
[21] Code of Hammurabi 16.
Creation as Fact
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical account of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to a man commenced suddenly and sharply at the definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.
agnostic Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers,” page 14
What Jastrow is pointing out for the particularly dense, is that natural forces could not be responsible for the Big Bang since natural forces did not exist until the Big Bang.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of force they cannot hope to discover. . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982.
Of course, atheists cannot hope to discover or even to acknowledge this force because they deny its existence prior to any search for the Cause of the Singularity.
RAB and TAM accuse me of repeating the same material over and over. If the answer for two plus two is four, then four is the answer that you will get whenever you ask my opinion on what is two plus two.
agnostic Robert Jastrow, “God and the Astronomers,” page 14
What Jastrow is pointing out for the particularly dense, is that natural forces could not be responsible for the Big Bang since natural forces did not exist until the Big Bang.
“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of force they cannot hope to discover. . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
“A Scientist Caught Between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow,” Christianity Today, August 6, 1982.
Of course, atheists cannot hope to discover or even to acknowledge this force because they deny its existence prior to any search for the Cause of the Singularity.
RAB and TAM accuse me of repeating the same material over and over. If the answer for two plus two is four, then four is the answer that you will get whenever you ask my opinion on what is two plus two.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Can You Trust Luke?
According to atheists? No. Atheists will tell you that because the earliest COPIES of Jesus’ biographies are from thirty years after His death (which means of course the originals were written much earlier and are very close to the time of His death) we can’t trust what they say.
According to atheists, what the Bible calls prophecy isn’t prophecy; what the Bible says is the story line of God's plan for the salvation for the world, isn’t that at all.
So here we have atheists, from a different culture, a different race and a vested interest in destroying a diametrically opposed viewpoint to their world-view, AND from not five or ten years after the fact but from THOUSANDS of years after the fact, saying, “This is not what the authors meant.”
Arrogant? Valid? You be the Judge.
I’m going to give you 84 facts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. These historical facts validate the Gospel writer, Dr. Luke as an historian extra ordinaire. Now:
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and call it mythology.
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and claim that Luke was not an eyewitness.
. Or, you can allow logic and reason to rule the day and you can ask yourself, “Is it likely that someone with an eye to such detail in his accounts got it wrong about Quirinias being governor of Syria in 6BC? Or is it perhaps the case that we are missing some crucial information for making this decision?”
. The natural crossing between correctly named ports Acts 13:4,5
. The proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus 13:13
. The proper location of Lycaonia 14:6
. The unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra 14:6
. The correct language spoken in Lystra - Lycaonian 14:11
. Two gods known to be so associated - Zeus and Mermes 14:12
. The proper port, Attalia, which returning travellers would use 14:25
. The correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates 16:1
. The proper form of the name Troas 16:8
. The place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace 16:11
. The proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony 16:12
. The right location for the river Gangites near Philippi 16:13
. The proper association of Thyatira as a centre of dyeing 16:14
. Correct designations for the magistrates of the colony 16:22
. The proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travellers would spend successive nights on this journey 17:1
. The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica 17:1
. The proper term “politarchs” used of the magistrates there 17:6
. The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favouring east winds for summer sailing 17:14-15
. The abundant presence of images in Athens 17:16
. The reference to a synagogue in Athens 17:17
. The depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora 17:17
. The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul “spermologos”, 17:18 as well as for the court “Areios pagos” 17:19
. The proper characterization of the Athenian character 17:21
. And alter to an “unknown god” 17:23
. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court 17:34
. A Corinthian synagogue 18:4
. The correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth 18:12
. The bema (judgment seat) which overlooks Corinth’s forum 18:16
. The name Tyronnus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions 19:9
. Well-know shrine and images of Artemis 19:24
. The well-attested “great goddess Artemis” 19:27
. That the Ephesian theatre was the meeting place of the city 19:29
. The correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus 19:35
. The proper title of honour “neokoros,” authorized by the Romans 19:35
. The correct name to designate the goddess 19:37
. The proper term for those holding court 19:38
. Use of the plural “anthupatoi,” perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time 19:38
. The “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere 19:39
. Use of precise ethnic designation, “beroiaios” 20:4
. Employment of the ethnic ter “Asianos 20:4
. The implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas 20:7
. The danger of the coastal trip in this location 20:13
. The correct sequence of places 20:14,15
. The correct name of the city as a neuter plural “Patara” 21:1
. The appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favoured by persistent northwest winds 21:3
. The suitable distance between these cities 21:8
. A characteristically Jewish act of piety 21:24
. The Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple areas 21:28
. The permanent stationing of a Roman cohort “chiliarch” at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times 21:31
. The flight of steps used be the guards 21:31,35
. The common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time 22:28
. The tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship 22:29
Anania being high priest at this time 23:2
. Felix being governor at this time 23:34
. The natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea 23:31
. Whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time 23:34
. The provincial penal procedure of the time 24:1-9
. The name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus 24:27
. The right of appeal for Roman citizens 25:11
. The correct legal formula 25:18
. The characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time 25:26
. The best shipping lanes at the time 27:5
. The common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia 27:4
. The principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy 27:5,6
. The slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical north-west wind 27:7
. The right route to sail, in view of the winds 27:7
. The locations of Fair Havens and the neighbouring site of Lasea 27:8
. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead 27:12
. A noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly into a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale 27:13
. The nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale 27:15
. The precise place and name of this island 27:16
. The appropriate manoeuvres for the safety of the ship in its particular plight 27:16
. The fourteenth night - a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators 27:27
. The proper term of the time for the Adriatic 27:27
. The precise term “Bolisantes” for taking soundings and the correct depth of the water near Malta 27:28
. A position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before and eaterly wind 27:39
. The severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape 27:42
. The local people and superstitions of the day 28:4-6
. The proper title “protos tes nesou” 28:7
. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait 28:13
. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly place stopping places on the Appian Way 28:15
. Appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers 28:16
. The conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense” 28:30,31
These historical facts validate the Gospel writer, Dr. Luke as an historian extra ordinaire.
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and call it mythology.
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and claim that Luke was not an eyewitness.
Or, you can allow logic and reason to rule the day and you can ask yourself, “Is it likely that someone with an eye to such detail in his accounts got it wrong about Quirinias being governor of Syria in 6BC? Or is it perhaps the case that we are missing some crucial information for making this decision?”
According to atheists, what the Bible calls prophecy isn’t prophecy; what the Bible says is the story line of God's plan for the salvation for the world, isn’t that at all.
So here we have atheists, from a different culture, a different race and a vested interest in destroying a diametrically opposed viewpoint to their world-view, AND from not five or ten years after the fact but from THOUSANDS of years after the fact, saying, “This is not what the authors meant.”
Arrogant? Valid? You be the Judge.
I’m going to give you 84 facts that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. These historical facts validate the Gospel writer, Dr. Luke as an historian extra ordinaire. Now:
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and call it mythology.
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and claim that Luke was not an eyewitness.
. Or, you can allow logic and reason to rule the day and you can ask yourself, “Is it likely that someone with an eye to such detail in his accounts got it wrong about Quirinias being governor of Syria in 6BC? Or is it perhaps the case that we are missing some crucial information for making this decision?”
. The natural crossing between correctly named ports Acts 13:4,5
. The proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus 13:13
. The proper location of Lycaonia 14:6
. The unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra 14:6
. The correct language spoken in Lystra - Lycaonian 14:11
. Two gods known to be so associated - Zeus and Mermes 14:12
. The proper port, Attalia, which returning travellers would use 14:25
. The correct order of approach to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilician Gates 16:1
. The proper form of the name Troas 16:8
. The place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace 16:11
. The proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony 16:12
. The right location for the river Gangites near Philippi 16:13
. The proper association of Thyatira as a centre of dyeing 16:14
. Correct designations for the magistrates of the colony 16:22
. The proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travellers would spend successive nights on this journey 17:1
. The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica 17:1
. The proper term “politarchs” used of the magistrates there 17:6
. The correct implication that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with the favouring east winds for summer sailing 17:14-15
. The abundant presence of images in Athens 17:16
. The reference to a synagogue in Athens 17:17
. The depiction of the Athenian life of philosophical debate in the Agora 17:17
. The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul “spermologos”, 17:18 as well as for the court “Areios pagos” 17:19
. The proper characterization of the Athenian character 17:21
. And alter to an “unknown god” 17:23
. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court 17:34
. A Corinthian synagogue 18:4
. The correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, resident in Corinth 18:12
. The bema (judgment seat) which overlooks Corinth’s forum 18:16
. The name Tyronnus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions 19:9
. Well-know shrine and images of Artemis 19:24
. The well-attested “great goddess Artemis” 19:27
. That the Ephesian theatre was the meeting place of the city 19:29
. The correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus 19:35
. The proper title of honour “neokoros,” authorized by the Romans 19:35
. The correct name to designate the goddess 19:37
. The proper term for those holding court 19:38
. Use of the plural “anthupatoi,” perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time 19:38
. The “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere 19:39
. Use of precise ethnic designation, “beroiaios” 20:4
. Employment of the ethnic ter “Asianos 20:4
. The implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to this city of Troas 20:7
. The danger of the coastal trip in this location 20:13
. The correct sequence of places 20:14,15
. The correct name of the city as a neuter plural “Patara” 21:1
. The appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favoured by persistent northwest winds 21:3
. The suitable distance between these cities 21:8
. A characteristically Jewish act of piety 21:24
. The Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple areas 21:28
. The permanent stationing of a Roman cohort “chiliarch” at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times 21:31
. The flight of steps used be the guards 21:31,35
. The common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time 22:28
. The tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship 22:29
Anania being high priest at this time 23:2
. Felix being governor at this time 23:34
. The natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea 23:31
. Whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time 23:34
. The provincial penal procedure of the time 24:1-9
. The name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus 24:27
. The right of appeal for Roman citizens 25:11
. The correct legal formula 25:18
. The characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time 25:26
. The best shipping lanes at the time 27:5
. The common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia 27:4
. The principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy 27:5,6
. The slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical north-west wind 27:7
. The right route to sail, in view of the winds 27:7
. The locations of Fair Havens and the neighbouring site of Lasea 27:8
. Fair Havens as a poorly sheltered roadstead 27:12
. A noted tendency of a south wind in these climes to back suddenly into a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale 27:13
. The nature of a square-rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale 27:15
. The precise place and name of this island 27:16
. The appropriate manoeuvres for the safety of the ship in its particular plight 27:16
. The fourteenth night - a remarkable calculation, based inevitably on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experienced Mediterranean navigators 27:27
. The proper term of the time for the Adriatic 27:27
. The precise term “Bolisantes” for taking soundings and the correct depth of the water near Malta 27:28
. A position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before and eaterly wind 27:39
. The severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape 27:42
. The local people and superstitions of the day 28:4-6
. The proper title “protos tes nesou” 28:7
. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the strait 28:13
. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly place stopping places on the Appian Way 28:15
. Appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers 28:16
. The conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense” 28:30,31
These historical facts validate the Gospel writer, Dr. Luke as an historian extra ordinaire.
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and call it mythology.
. You can, as atheists consistently do, look at these confirmed facts and claim that Luke was not an eyewitness.
Or, you can allow logic and reason to rule the day and you can ask yourself, “Is it likely that someone with an eye to such detail in his accounts got it wrong about Quirinias being governor of Syria in 6BC? Or is it perhaps the case that we are missing some crucial information for making this decision?”
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Ten Ways to NOT Evangelise
Hemant has a really good post from somebody (she doesn't like people who aren't her friends using her name) on how to keep people from listening to or "hearing" your message about Jesus. It's bang on.
I do find it amusing how atheists are creeped out by knowing that in their hotel room, in THAT closed drawer, lies a Bible. It makes it seem like someone who would look under the bed at night. Other than that it's pretty good.
I do find it amusing how atheists are creeped out by knowing that in their hotel room, in THAT closed drawer, lies a Bible. It makes it seem like someone who would look under the bed at night. Other than that it's pretty good.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Atheist Answer to the Empty Tomb
Do you remember a while back when, I told you about an atheist who said:
“There are no extra Biblical references to Jesus from antiquity.”
So I showed her a couple dozen extra Biblical references (I didn’t even use all that are available or even necessarily the best / contemporary citations) and her response was,
"There are no extra Biblical references to Jesus from antiquity.”
I’ve found another atheist just like her. I swear it’s not the same person. However it would be hard to believe that the intellect of these two wasn’t formed in the same womb. A few of this person’s comments include,
“The empty tomb is not an historical fact. It exists in a vacuum with no physical evidence.”
“To the best of my knowledge, to date there are no known facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus.”
“Show me a "skilled historical scholar" who believes that it is a fact that "the tomb" was empty and I'll show you a fraud.”
==========
I want to start just a bit prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ predictions about His resurrection are usually denied because His resurrection is denied. The fact is, when Jesus predicted His resurrection even His closest followers didn’t get it because, well, no one rises naturally from the dead. To them, Jesus was talking once more in a parable or an analogy or something incomprehensible. For example:
Mark 8:31-33 - Peter takes Jesus aside an tells Him to not even make such stupid statements in front of the others.
Mark 9:31-32 - Not only didn’t the disciples get what He was talking about, they were afraid to ask what He meant.
John 20:2,13-15 - Even when His empty tomb was discovered, the very first conclusion that the disciples came to, as would have been the same with us, is that someone had stolen Jesus’ body.
Luke 24: 10-12 - When the women said they had seen Jesus alive, the disciples thought they were, well, just stupid women.
John 20:9 - Even when they saw the empty tomb, and even when they saw the empty burial clothes, they, like would be the case with us, just did not get it.
John 20:24-25 - And of course, Thomas, like all rational people said that he simply wouldn’t believe it unless Jesus appeared right in front of him.
Sceptics say, without even a hint of a smile, that the disciples wrote all this embarrassing stuff about themselves in order to, um, what? I’m not sure what the sceptic is thinking. Nevertheless, the principle of embarrassment” is something that historical scholars count as highly authenticating, and so it is.
Now, my atheist friend says, that any scholar - just a minute - how does he put it? Oh yes,
“Show me a "skilled historical scholar" who believes that it is a fact that the tomb was empty and I'll show you a fraud.” A FRAUD?
I think this would come as quite a surprise to those who work in this field. This would be especially surprising to Blank, Blinzler, Bode, Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, von Campenhause, Delorme, Dhanis, Ellis, Gundry, Grundmann, Hengel, , Hooke, Jerimias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Marshall, Moule, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Perry, Robinson, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schnackenburg, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwant, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, Wielchkens and Kremer. All of these people, secular, atheist and Christian are first rate historical scholars and all of them deem the empty tomb to be historical fact. These forty-five prominent scholars believe that there was an empty tomb and our sceptic calls them frauds for doing so.
So the question is why? Why would the above mentioned scholars plus 65 slightly lessor known scholars on this subject say the empty tomb story is true? Why do only 35 scholars in this field, a 3:1 ratio, doubt the empty tomb? There are 23 points of evidence for the empty tomb. I can’t go into all of them here, but I will touch on a few.
The historical reliability of accounts regarding Jesus’ burial:
If the story of Jesus’ burial is accurate (besides his death at crucifixion, the burial is the most accepted account as historical fact), then the location of Jesus’ tomb was known in Jerusalem by both Christian and Jew, friend and enemy. That means that the tomb must have been empty when the disciples began to preach His resurrection. Why? For many reasons but one obvious reason is that They couldn't have believed in His resurrection if His tomb WASN'T empty.
The Jerusalem Factor:
Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem. His resurrection and the empty tomb were first reported by Jesus’ followers right there in Jerusalem. If the body had still been in the tomb Christianity would have not gone anywhere. All the enemies of Christianity would have had to do, is exhume the body and that would have been the end of the story. Not only are Jewish, Roman, and other writings at the time absent of such an attempted hoax, there is total silence from Christianity’s critics who would have been more than happy to spread such a story if it had been at all possible. If the body had been produced from the tomb where Jesus had been buried, rather than a developing Church, the air from such a movement would have been deflated overnight. If the tomb had been not been empty, historians Justin, Terullian, Origen and especially Celsus would have pointed that out. A body of any sort would have been the undoing of Christianity. The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection flourished in the very city where He was murdered. That is a powerful fact of history.
Enemy Attestation:
Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body. This is historical evidence of the highest quality, since it comes not from the Christians but from the very enemies of the early Christian faith. Confirmation that Jesus' enemies confirmed the empty tomb and claimed it was because the disciples had stolen the body is found in:
. Matthew 28:12-13,
. Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; and
. Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30.
This claim that the disciples stole the body is an indirect admission that the body is missing. If the tomb had been occupied, then the disciples would have been forced to prove that this body was NOT that of Jesus. No such dispute ever seems to have taken place. Again, if Jesus’ burial is historical, then the empty tomb is historical as well. Those who deny the empty tomb, like our sceptic, are also forced to deny the burial as well. Sadly, for this sceptic, the burial is one of the best-established facts of Jesus life.
“Says who?” asks my sceptic. Well >
Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in extremely early, independent sources.
. The account of Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is part of Mark’s source material. This is a very early source.
. Paul in Corinthians 15:3-5 quotes and old Christian tradition that he had received from the earliest disciples. This goes back to the first year and more probably the second month after Jesus’ death. In this oral tradition, that was probably used for teaching, we find that “Christ dies for our sins, AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, and that he was raised on the third day and that He appeared . . .”
1st Cor.15:3-5; Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:37 - 16:7 give us amazing correspondence of independent traditions forming convincing evidence that lists the basic events of Jesus’ passion and resurrection. This is evidence from two of the earliest, independent sources in the New Testament for the burial of Jesus in the tomb, and these earliest, independent sources are confirmed by further independent testimony by Joseph found in Matthew and Luke and John. The differences in these accounts suggest that Matthew and Luke had sources other than Mark alone. In all, there are six, independent sources used by the Gospel writers in documenting evidence for the death, burial and empty tomb.
Joseph of Arimathea:
It is very unlikely that early Christians would have invented a story that includes a rich member of the Sanhedrin, the very group that condemned Jesus to death. The Sanhedrin had in fact orchestrated the murder of Jesus. There was an understandable hostility toward this council by the early church. Since Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, “All of whom voted to condemn Jesus,” it would be pretty odd to make him into some kind of a hero by burying Jesus in his tomb if it didn’t really happen.
The Testimony of Women:
If someone had invented a story, and atheists say the whole of the New Testament is a cleverly devised tale, then surely they wouldn’t have added items that actually hurt the credibility of their story. Adding women as witnesses would have done exactly that. Just as, in the minds of atheists today, Christian testimony or even scientific research is worthless, in that time and place, the testimony of women was worthless.
In this case, women aren’t just said to be witnesses. They are said to be the primary witnesses, while male witnesses appear only later. Given the low esteem of women in both Roman and Jewish culture at that time, it would have been suicidal to one’s cause to say that you’ve accepted testimony that is based on the accounts of women - unless it was the only aspect that could be documented because it was true. If this story was invented, why not make men like Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus the discoverers of the tomb and just avoid the woman issue altogether.
“The first day of the week.”
According to Mark, the empty tomb was discovered by the women “on the first day of the week.” Paul, whose creed comes from very early sources says, Jesus was raised “on the third day.” If the empty tomb story was a late legend, it would have certainly been worded in the accepted and widespread third-day motif. Mark’s source, who uses “first day” shows that his source was even earlier than Paul’s and, in the minds of scholars makes it more believable, i.e., the tomb was empty.
William Lane Craig states, “Several words or expressions which are unique in all the New Testament, such as “on the next day,” “The preparation day, "deceiver," "guard," “to make secure,” “to seal,” this expression “chief priests and Pharisees,” is unusual for Matthew and never appears in Mark or Luke. The expression “on the third day” is also not from Matthew; he always uses “after three days,” in general only 35 of Matthew’s 136 words in the empty tomb story are found in Mark’s 138 words. Similarly, only 16 of Luke’s 123 words are found in Mark’s account. Moreover, Matthew and Luke have only a dozen words in common which shows the independence of their sources.
There is no embellishment:
If the empty tomb was made up, one could expect to find a detailed account of the resurrection, a description of Jesus rising out of the grave clothes or even coming out of the tomb. There is nothing of the sort. There is no reflection on Jesus’ triumph over the grave, or over sin and death, no description of fulfilling prophecy.
When Paul says that Jesus was crucified, and that He was raised, an empty tomb is obviously implied.
Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour of the empty tomb and those scholars who reject it ought to recognise that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”
Of course, the empty tomb by itself really proves very little.
. It wouldn’t have convinced the Christian killer Paul. Like us, he would have thought someone stole the body. Paul converted because he believed that he had seen and been taught by the risen Messiah.
. It wouldn’t have convinced the sceptic James. He, like Paul, turned his life around because he believed that Jesus appeared to him, taught him, ate with him and appointed him as a witness to the rest of the world.
. It didn’t seem to lead any of Jesus’ followers, except John to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.
In fact, and again like us, Mary Magdalene’s first thought was that the gardener had stolen, or moved Jesus’ body. Peter didn’t believe because of the empty tomb. Thomas certainly didn’t believe that Jesus had risen based on the empty tomb. The empty tomb didn’t convince anyone of anything in particular. So why bring it up, I mean, besides the sceptics ignorant comment? Well -
Combine the empty tomb with post resurrection appearances to hundreds of people, the conversion of Paul, the conversion of James, the multiple group appearance to the disciples, the dramatic change in the disciple’s character and the rapid rise of the Christian Church and the empty tomb becomes part of a powerful, cohesive whole.
Gary Habermas surveyed thirty years of German, French and English critical scholarship relating to Jesus’ resurrection, 1,400 sources in all. No fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Most of these appearances were to groups of people, which rules out hallucinations or subjective experiences.
Listen carefully:
. If the disciples believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus, regardless of whether the experience was subjective, hallucination or otherwise, that means that the resurrection story wasn’t myth making.
. If Jesus’ life story was not myth making, then the facts could and HAVE been traced to the original witnesses.
. If the disciples really believed, regardless of cause, that they really saw the risen Christ, then we can throw out that they stole the body and made up the story.
. That means that the tomb was indeed empty.
Bottom line, if the tomb was empty because Jesus rose from the dead, then God exists and eternal life is also a fact of life.
“There are no extra Biblical references to Jesus from antiquity.”
So I showed her a couple dozen extra Biblical references (I didn’t even use all that are available or even necessarily the best / contemporary citations) and her response was,
"There are no extra Biblical references to Jesus from antiquity.”
I’ve found another atheist just like her. I swear it’s not the same person. However it would be hard to believe that the intellect of these two wasn’t formed in the same womb. A few of this person’s comments include,
“The empty tomb is not an historical fact. It exists in a vacuum with no physical evidence.”
“To the best of my knowledge, to date there are no known facts regarding the resurrection of Jesus.”
“Show me a "skilled historical scholar" who believes that it is a fact that "the tomb" was empty and I'll show you a fraud.”
==========
I want to start just a bit prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ predictions about His resurrection are usually denied because His resurrection is denied. The fact is, when Jesus predicted His resurrection even His closest followers didn’t get it because, well, no one rises naturally from the dead. To them, Jesus was talking once more in a parable or an analogy or something incomprehensible. For example:
Mark 8:31-33 - Peter takes Jesus aside an tells Him to not even make such stupid statements in front of the others.
Mark 9:31-32 - Not only didn’t the disciples get what He was talking about, they were afraid to ask what He meant.
John 20:2,13-15 - Even when His empty tomb was discovered, the very first conclusion that the disciples came to, as would have been the same with us, is that someone had stolen Jesus’ body.
Luke 24: 10-12 - When the women said they had seen Jesus alive, the disciples thought they were, well, just stupid women.
John 20:9 - Even when they saw the empty tomb, and even when they saw the empty burial clothes, they, like would be the case with us, just did not get it.
John 20:24-25 - And of course, Thomas, like all rational people said that he simply wouldn’t believe it unless Jesus appeared right in front of him.
Sceptics say, without even a hint of a smile, that the disciples wrote all this embarrassing stuff about themselves in order to, um, what? I’m not sure what the sceptic is thinking. Nevertheless, the principle of embarrassment” is something that historical scholars count as highly authenticating, and so it is.
Now, my atheist friend says, that any scholar - just a minute - how does he put it? Oh yes,
“Show me a "skilled historical scholar" who believes that it is a fact that the tomb was empty and I'll show you a fraud.” A FRAUD?
I think this would come as quite a surprise to those who work in this field. This would be especially surprising to Blank, Blinzler, Bode, Benoit, Brown, Clark, Dunn, von Campenhause, Delorme, Dhanis, Ellis, Gundry, Grundmann, Hengel, , Hooke, Jerimias, Klappert, Ladd, Lane, Lehmann, Leon-Dufour, Lichtenstein, Marshall, Moule, Manek, Martini, Mussner, Nauck, Perry, Robinson, Rengstorff, Ruckstuhl, Schnackenburg, Schenke, Schmitt, Schubert, Schwant, Schweizer, Seidensticker, Stuhlmacher, Trilling, Vogtle, Wielchkens and Kremer. All of these people, secular, atheist and Christian are first rate historical scholars and all of them deem the empty tomb to be historical fact. These forty-five prominent scholars believe that there was an empty tomb and our sceptic calls them frauds for doing so.
So the question is why? Why would the above mentioned scholars plus 65 slightly lessor known scholars on this subject say the empty tomb story is true? Why do only 35 scholars in this field, a 3:1 ratio, doubt the empty tomb? There are 23 points of evidence for the empty tomb. I can’t go into all of them here, but I will touch on a few.
The historical reliability of accounts regarding Jesus’ burial:
If the story of Jesus’ burial is accurate (besides his death at crucifixion, the burial is the most accepted account as historical fact), then the location of Jesus’ tomb was known in Jerusalem by both Christian and Jew, friend and enemy. That means that the tomb must have been empty when the disciples began to preach His resurrection. Why? For many reasons but one obvious reason is that They couldn't have believed in His resurrection if His tomb WASN'T empty.
The Jerusalem Factor:
Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem. His resurrection and the empty tomb were first reported by Jesus’ followers right there in Jerusalem. If the body had still been in the tomb Christianity would have not gone anywhere. All the enemies of Christianity would have had to do, is exhume the body and that would have been the end of the story. Not only are Jewish, Roman, and other writings at the time absent of such an attempted hoax, there is total silence from Christianity’s critics who would have been more than happy to spread such a story if it had been at all possible. If the body had been produced from the tomb where Jesus had been buried, rather than a developing Church, the air from such a movement would have been deflated overnight. If the tomb had been not been empty, historians Justin, Terullian, Origen and especially Celsus would have pointed that out. A body of any sort would have been the undoing of Christianity. The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection flourished in the very city where He was murdered. That is a powerful fact of history.
Enemy Attestation:
Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused Jesus’ disciples of stealing the body. This is historical evidence of the highest quality, since it comes not from the Christians but from the very enemies of the early Christian faith. Confirmation that Jesus' enemies confirmed the empty tomb and claimed it was because the disciples had stolen the body is found in:
. Matthew 28:12-13,
. Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; and
. Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30.
This claim that the disciples stole the body is an indirect admission that the body is missing. If the tomb had been occupied, then the disciples would have been forced to prove that this body was NOT that of Jesus. No such dispute ever seems to have taken place. Again, if Jesus’ burial is historical, then the empty tomb is historical as well. Those who deny the empty tomb, like our sceptic, are also forced to deny the burial as well. Sadly, for this sceptic, the burial is one of the best-established facts of Jesus life.
“Says who?” asks my sceptic. Well >
Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in extremely early, independent sources.
. The account of Jesus’ burial in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea is part of Mark’s source material. This is a very early source.
. Paul in Corinthians 15:3-5 quotes and old Christian tradition that he had received from the earliest disciples. This goes back to the first year and more probably the second month after Jesus’ death. In this oral tradition, that was probably used for teaching, we find that “Christ dies for our sins, AND THAT HE WAS BURIED, and that he was raised on the third day and that He appeared . . .”
1st Cor.15:3-5; Acts 13:28-31 and Mark 15:37 - 16:7 give us amazing correspondence of independent traditions forming convincing evidence that lists the basic events of Jesus’ passion and resurrection. This is evidence from two of the earliest, independent sources in the New Testament for the burial of Jesus in the tomb, and these earliest, independent sources are confirmed by further independent testimony by Joseph found in Matthew and Luke and John. The differences in these accounts suggest that Matthew and Luke had sources other than Mark alone. In all, there are six, independent sources used by the Gospel writers in documenting evidence for the death, burial and empty tomb.
Joseph of Arimathea:
It is very unlikely that early Christians would have invented a story that includes a rich member of the Sanhedrin, the very group that condemned Jesus to death. The Sanhedrin had in fact orchestrated the murder of Jesus. There was an understandable hostility toward this council by the early church. Since Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin, “All of whom voted to condemn Jesus,” it would be pretty odd to make him into some kind of a hero by burying Jesus in his tomb if it didn’t really happen.
The Testimony of Women:
If someone had invented a story, and atheists say the whole of the New Testament is a cleverly devised tale, then surely they wouldn’t have added items that actually hurt the credibility of their story. Adding women as witnesses would have done exactly that. Just as, in the minds of atheists today, Christian testimony or even scientific research is worthless, in that time and place, the testimony of women was worthless.
In this case, women aren’t just said to be witnesses. They are said to be the primary witnesses, while male witnesses appear only later. Given the low esteem of women in both Roman and Jewish culture at that time, it would have been suicidal to one’s cause to say that you’ve accepted testimony that is based on the accounts of women - unless it was the only aspect that could be documented because it was true. If this story was invented, why not make men like Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus the discoverers of the tomb and just avoid the woman issue altogether.
“The first day of the week.”
According to Mark, the empty tomb was discovered by the women “on the first day of the week.” Paul, whose creed comes from very early sources says, Jesus was raised “on the third day.” If the empty tomb story was a late legend, it would have certainly been worded in the accepted and widespread third-day motif. Mark’s source, who uses “first day” shows that his source was even earlier than Paul’s and, in the minds of scholars makes it more believable, i.e., the tomb was empty.
William Lane Craig states, “Several words or expressions which are unique in all the New Testament, such as “on the next day,” “The preparation day, "deceiver," "guard," “to make secure,” “to seal,” this expression “chief priests and Pharisees,” is unusual for Matthew and never appears in Mark or Luke. The expression “on the third day” is also not from Matthew; he always uses “after three days,” in general only 35 of Matthew’s 136 words in the empty tomb story are found in Mark’s 138 words. Similarly, only 16 of Luke’s 123 words are found in Mark’s account. Moreover, Matthew and Luke have only a dozen words in common which shows the independence of their sources.
There is no embellishment:
If the empty tomb was made up, one could expect to find a detailed account of the resurrection, a description of Jesus rising out of the grave clothes or even coming out of the tomb. There is nothing of the sort. There is no reflection on Jesus’ triumph over the grave, or over sin and death, no description of fulfilling prophecy.
When Paul says that Jesus was crucified, and that He was raised, an empty tomb is obviously implied.
Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favour of the empty tomb and those scholars who reject it ought to recognise that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”
Of course, the empty tomb by itself really proves very little.
. It wouldn’t have convinced the Christian killer Paul. Like us, he would have thought someone stole the body. Paul converted because he believed that he had seen and been taught by the risen Messiah.
. It wouldn’t have convinced the sceptic James. He, like Paul, turned his life around because he believed that Jesus appeared to him, taught him, ate with him and appointed him as a witness to the rest of the world.
. It didn’t seem to lead any of Jesus’ followers, except John to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.
In fact, and again like us, Mary Magdalene’s first thought was that the gardener had stolen, or moved Jesus’ body. Peter didn’t believe because of the empty tomb. Thomas certainly didn’t believe that Jesus had risen based on the empty tomb. The empty tomb didn’t convince anyone of anything in particular. So why bring it up, I mean, besides the sceptics ignorant comment? Well -
Combine the empty tomb with post resurrection appearances to hundreds of people, the conversion of Paul, the conversion of James, the multiple group appearance to the disciples, the dramatic change in the disciple’s character and the rapid rise of the Christian Church and the empty tomb becomes part of a powerful, cohesive whole.
Gary Habermas surveyed thirty years of German, French and English critical scholarship relating to Jesus’ resurrection, 1,400 sources in all. No fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. Most of these appearances were to groups of people, which rules out hallucinations or subjective experiences.
Listen carefully:
. If the disciples believed they had seen the resurrected Jesus, regardless of whether the experience was subjective, hallucination or otherwise, that means that the resurrection story wasn’t myth making.
. If Jesus’ life story was not myth making, then the facts could and HAVE been traced to the original witnesses.
. If the disciples really believed, regardless of cause, that they really saw the risen Christ, then we can throw out that they stole the body and made up the story.
. That means that the tomb was indeed empty.
Bottom line, if the tomb was empty because Jesus rose from the dead, then God exists and eternal life is also a fact of life.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Atheists sure know their Bible - Not!
Some atheist who calls himself Friendly Passerby stated, “There is nothing in the Bible that is beyond the knowledge of man at that time.”
This wasn’t his stupidest statement but it was right up there. He also made some comment about our universe just being last in an infinite cycle of universes. That of course is either profoundly ignorant or a deliberate lie. At any rate:
A common manner in which the Bible is criticised by anti-theists is to call it a Bronze Age Book. Or they say that it was written by camel jockeys or similar racist epithets. The Bible may be a book from the Bronze Age and before, but to say that it contains nothing but common knowledge, well . . .
1) In the Bible, we have a Book that diagnoses the atheist problem -
“No one is without excuse. The universe declares the existence of God.”
To date, nothing has been able to refute or falsify that claim.
2) The Bible tells us -
“What is visible is made from what is not visible”
- This 1,500 years before the microscope was invented.
3) The Bible tells us -
“God sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth . . .”
- This thousands of years before people found out that earth wasn’t flat. Now, atheists will tell you that the flat earth concept came from what the Bible taught. This is not the case. It’s just yet another example of atheists being incapable of interpreting Scripture.
4) The Bible tells us -
“The earth will wear out like and old garment, There will be famines in many lands and war without ceasing,”
- this 2,000 years before anyone dreamed that the earth could run short of anything.
5) The Bible tells us -
“The Lord suspends the earth over nothing.”
- This, 5,000 years before modern man discovered it’s truth. Until then ancients speculated that the earth sat on a strong foundation or was supported by a mythological god.
6) The Bible tells us -
“The number of the stars are like the sand which is on the seashore.”
- This, thousands and thousands of years before the telescope. Without the telescope only ~ 5,000 stars are visible to the naked eye. To say they were uncountable would have seemed preposterous. Yet it’s the truth.
7) This is a Book that -
Predicted the Israelites would be scattered throughout the world, that Israel as a nation would disappear only to return as a nation “in one day”
- this 3,000 years before the return of Israel as a nation took place.
1948 was the first time since 70 A.D. that the people of Israel have been brought back to control their homeland.
Ezekiel - 37:21 (Written 597 years before the birth of Christ) - For the Lord God says, “I am gathering the people of Israel from among the nations and bringing them home from around the world to their own homeland, to unify them into one nation.”
Ezekiel 38:12 - “I will go to those once desolate cities that are now filled with people again, those who have returned from all the nations, and the whole earth revolves around them. This will happen in the distant future, in the latter years of history.
The new state of Israel now contains people who have come from 100 different countries, speaking 60 different languages and the trek homeward continues to this day.
Zechariah 12:2,3,7, & 9 (Written 520 years before the birth of Christ) - I will make Jerusalem and Judah like a cup of poison to all the nearby nations that send their armies to surround her. Jerusalem will be a heavy stone burdening the world and though all the nations of the world unite in an attempt to move her, they will all be crushed. For my plan is to destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem.
Zechariah 2: 4 & 7 - Jerusalem will some day be so full of people she won’t have room enough for all. I scattered you to the winds, but I will bring you back again.
This is the whole problem with Palestine and Israel right now. There is not enough room for all of the Jews coming home and they are building settlements in Palestinian territory.
According to this atheist all this was common knowledge during the time it was written. And then we have the common knowledge of who the Saviour would be a thousand or more years in advance.
From the seed of Abraham
The Prophecy - Genesis 22:18 (Written about 1440 years before Jesus was born)
“And in your seed all the nations of the world shall be blessed.” (God speaking to Abraham).
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 1:1
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
This determines that of all the races of the world, we could look for The Saviour to come from the Hebrew race.
Son of Isaac
The Prophecy - Genesis 21:12 (Written about 1440 years before Jesus was born).
“For Isaac is the son through whom My promise will be fulfilled.” (See Matthew chapter 1for a continuation of Jesus’ genealogy record)
Abraham had two sons. God eliminates one half of the lineage of Abraham in prophesying the lineage of Jesus.
Son of Jacob
The Prophecy - Numbers 24:17 (Written about 1400 years before Jesus was born)
“I see in the future of Israel, far down the distant trail that there shall come a star from Jacob, this ruler of Israel.”
Isaac had two sons. God eliminates one half of the lineage of Isaac prophesying the lineage of Jesus
Tribe of Judah
The Prophecy - Genesis 49:10 (Written about 1440 years before Jesus was born).
“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.”
Jacob had 12 sons out of which came the 12 tribes of Israel. God eliminates eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel in prophesying the lineage of Jesus.
Family line of Jesse
The Prophecy - Isaiah 11:1 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“The royal line of Jesse will be cut off, chopped down like a tree. But from the stump will grow a shoot, yes a new branch, the Messiah from the old root.”
House of David
The Prophecy - Isaiah 23:5 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“ For the time is coming says the Lord, when I will place a righteous branch upon King David’s throne. He shall be a King who shall rule with wisdom and justice.”
Jesse had at least eight sons. Now God eliminates all of Jesse’s sons except David in prophesying the lineage of Jesus.
Born at Bethlehem
The Prophecy - Micah 5:2 - (Written about 750 years before Jesus was born)
“O Bethlehem you are but a small Judean village, yet you will be the birthplace of my King who is alive from ages past.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 2:1
“Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem of Judea.”
God, in prophecy, now eliminates all the cities and towns in the world but one for the entrance of His Son to planet earth.
Preceded by a messenger
The Prophecy - Isaiah 40:3 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“I hear a voice calling in the wilderness, make a road for the Lord.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 3:1
“John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness.”
Ministry to begin in Galilee
The Prophecy - Isaiah 9:1 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish in the land of Zebulun and Neaphtali, by the way of the sea on the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 4:12
“He withdrew into Galilee and leaving Nazareth He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Neaphtale. From that time Jesus began to preach.”
Ministry of Miracles
The Prophecy - Isaiah 35:5 & 6 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, the ears of the deaf will be unstopped, the lame will leap like deer, the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 11:4 & 5
Jesus said, “Tell John about the miracles you’ve seen Me do, the blind I’ve healed, the deaf who hear and the dead raised to life. And tell him about Me preaching the good news.”
Teacher of parables
The Prophecy - Psalm 78:2 (Written over many centuries but completed about 300 years before Jesus was born).
“I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings of old.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 13:14
“All these things spoke Jesus to the multitudes in parables and He was not talking to them without a parable.”
Enter Jerusalem on a donkey
The Prophecy - Zechariah 9:9 (Written about 520 years before Jesus was born)
“Rejoice greatly oh My people, shout with joy, for look, your King is coming , He is the righteous one, the victor, yet He is lowly, riding on a donkey’s colt.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 21:2,4, & 5
“Just as you enter the village you will find a donkey tied there with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them here.”
Stumbling stone to the unbelievers
The Prophecy - Psalm 118:22 (Written over many centuries but completed about 300 years before Jesus was born).
“The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - 1 Peter 2:7 (Peter was one of Jesus’ closest friends and followers. In any list of disciples, Peter’s name always appears first. Peter was an eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus)
“He is very precious to you who believe and to those who reject Him, well the same stone that was rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone. He is the stone that some will stumble over and the rock that will make them fall. They will stumble because they will not listen to God’s word or obey it.”
Resurrection
The Prophecy - Psalm 16:10 (Written over many centuries but completed about 300 years before Jesus was born).
“For you will not leave me among the dead. You will not allow your beloved one to rot in the grave.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Acts 2:31
“He was neither abandoned to hades nor did His flesh suffer decay.”
(Acts was written by Luke. He was a physician and a historian of extraordinary detail and accuracy. The Gospel bearing his name was the work of what today might be called investigative journalism. Luke was a convert to Christianity and took part in the ministry of the early Church).
The following were prophesied from 1000 - 500 years before Jesus was born but were all fulfilled in one day.
Betrayed by a friend
The Prophecy - Psalm 41:9 - “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:49 & 56 - “So now Judas came straight to a Jesus and embraced Him in a friendly manner. Jesus said, “My friend, go and do what you have come for.”
Sold for 30 Pieces of silver
The Prophecy - Zephaniah 11:12 - “If you like give me my pay, what ever I’m worth. So they counted out 30 silver coins.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:15 - “Judas asked how much will you pay me and they gave him 30 silver coins.”
Money thrown into God’s house
The Prophecy - Zechariah 11:13 - “And the Lord told me, toss it into the temple treasury this magnificent sum they value you at. So I took the thirty coins and threw them in.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:5 - “And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed.”
Forsaken by his disciples
The Prophecy - Zechariah 13:7 - “Strike down the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:56 - “Jesus said, This is all happening to fulfil the words of the prophets. At that point all the disciples deserted Him and fled.”
Accused by false witness
The Prophecy - Psalm 35:11 - “These evil men swear to a lie. They accuse me of things I have never even heard about.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:59 - “The entire Jewish supreme court assembled and looked for witnesses who would lie about Jesus.”
Quiet before his accusers
The Prophecy - Isaiah 53:7 - “He was oppressed and He was afflicted yet He never said a word.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:12 - “And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer.”
Hands and feet pierced
The Prophecy - Psalm 22:16 - “They pierced my hands and feet.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Luke 23:33 - “And when they came to the place called the skull, they crucified him.”
Crucifixion had not come into the Jewish system until hundreds of years after Psalms was written. It was unheard of at the time of Psalms.
Made intercession for his persecutors
The Prophecy - Isaiah 53:12 - “Yet He bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Luke 23:34 - “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Hated without cause
The Prophecy - Psalm 69:4 - “Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 15:25 - “Jesus said, “But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled - They hated Me without cause.”
Friends stood afar off
The Prophecy - Psalm 38:11 - My loved ones and my friends stay away, even my own family stands at a distance.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Luke 23:49 - “All His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance seeing these things.”
People shook their heads
The Prophecy - Psalm 109:25 - I also have become a reproach to them. When they see me they wag their heads.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:39 - Those who were passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads.”
Garments parted and lots cast
The Prophecy - Psalm 22:18 - They divided my garments among them and for my clothing they cast lots.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 19:23 & 24 - The soldiers took his outer garments and made four parts. They said “lets not tear the tunic, but cast lots for it.” (John was Jesus’ closest friend. He looked after Jesus’ mother after her son’s execution. He was an eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus).
Gall and vinegar offered Him
The Prophecy - Psalm 69:21 - They gave me gall for my food. For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:34 - They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.
His forsaken cry
The Prophecy - Psalm 22:1 - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me.”
Committed himself to God
The Prophecy - Psalm 31:5 - “Into they hand I commit My spirit.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:46 - Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father into they hands I commit My spirit.”
Bones not broken
The Prophecy - Psalm 34:20 - He keeps all his bones, not one of them is broken.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 19:33 - When they saw that He was already dead, they did not break his legs.”
His side pierced
The Prophecy - Zechariah 12:10 - They will look on me whom they have pierced.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 19:34 - But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear.
Darkness at noon
The Prophecy - Amos 8:9 - I shall make the sun go down at noon and make the earth dark in broad daylight.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:45 - Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.
Buried in a rich man’s grave
The Prophecy - Isaiah 53:9 - He was buried like a criminal in a rich man’s grave.”
The Prophecy - Matthew 27:57 - There came a rich man from Arimathea and took the body and laid it in his own tomb.
Jesus had no control over the prophecies about:
1. Place of birth
2. Time of birth
3. Manner of birth
4. Betrayal
5. Manner of death
6. People’s reaction
7 Piercing, and
8. Burial
Professor Peter Stoner, Editor of ‘Science Digest’ has calculate that the odds of the 20 prophecies of what happened to Jesus on the last day of His life here on earth, to be 10 to the power of minus 157, against them coming true in one man, accidentally. Scientists agree that 10 to minus 50 is the same as zero - impossible.
To those who encountered Him but refused to believe what He taught, Jesus had this to say.
(John 5:46 & 47) Jesus said, “It is not I who will accuse you before the Father, Moses will. For you have refused to believe Moses. He wrote about Me but you refuse to believe him, so you refuse to believe Me. Since you don’t believe what Moses wrote, no wonder you don’t believe Me either.”
(Matthew 13:17) Jesus said, “For I tell the truth, many prophets longed to see what you see and hear what you hear.”
(Mark 12:36) Jesus said, “When David spoke, the Holy Spirit was speaking through him when he said it.”
(John 10:34) Jesus said, “The Scriptures cannot be untrue.”
To neglect such awesome evidence will surely come at an awesome cost. Jesus promises however that to respond positively will come with an awesome reward.
Jesus was talking about the same Scriptures we have today. In the next two verses, Jesus indicates that “all” of the Old Testament included prophecy of His coming.
(Luke 24:25 & 27) “How foolish you have been and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” And beginning with the Law and all the Prophets, Jesus explained to them what was said in all the Scripture about Him.”
(Luke 24:44) Jesus said, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Perhaps this atheist was thinking of something else when he said, “There is nothing in the Bible that is beyond the knowledge of man at that time.”
Regardless of atheist’s ignorance, human nature has not changed one iota since the Bible was written. This Book has described human nature perfectly, beginning with Genesis and following through to Revelation. Anything of value that I’ve learned during years of education regarding human nature can also be found in the Bible.
One thing that the Bible bears out is that Truth is not affected by time.
This wasn’t his stupidest statement but it was right up there. He also made some comment about our universe just being last in an infinite cycle of universes. That of course is either profoundly ignorant or a deliberate lie. At any rate:
A common manner in which the Bible is criticised by anti-theists is to call it a Bronze Age Book. Or they say that it was written by camel jockeys or similar racist epithets. The Bible may be a book from the Bronze Age and before, but to say that it contains nothing but common knowledge, well . . .
1) In the Bible, we have a Book that diagnoses the atheist problem -
“No one is without excuse. The universe declares the existence of God.”
To date, nothing has been able to refute or falsify that claim.
2) The Bible tells us -
“What is visible is made from what is not visible”
- This 1,500 years before the microscope was invented.
3) The Bible tells us -
“God sits enthroned above the CIRCLE of the earth . . .”
- This thousands of years before people found out that earth wasn’t flat. Now, atheists will tell you that the flat earth concept came from what the Bible taught. This is not the case. It’s just yet another example of atheists being incapable of interpreting Scripture.
4) The Bible tells us -
“The earth will wear out like and old garment, There will be famines in many lands and war without ceasing,”
- this 2,000 years before anyone dreamed that the earth could run short of anything.
5) The Bible tells us -
“The Lord suspends the earth over nothing.”
- This, 5,000 years before modern man discovered it’s truth. Until then ancients speculated that the earth sat on a strong foundation or was supported by a mythological god.
6) The Bible tells us -
“The number of the stars are like the sand which is on the seashore.”
- This, thousands and thousands of years before the telescope. Without the telescope only ~ 5,000 stars are visible to the naked eye. To say they were uncountable would have seemed preposterous. Yet it’s the truth.
7) This is a Book that -
Predicted the Israelites would be scattered throughout the world, that Israel as a nation would disappear only to return as a nation “in one day”
- this 3,000 years before the return of Israel as a nation took place.
1948 was the first time since 70 A.D. that the people of Israel have been brought back to control their homeland.
Ezekiel - 37:21 (Written 597 years before the birth of Christ) - For the Lord God says, “I am gathering the people of Israel from among the nations and bringing them home from around the world to their own homeland, to unify them into one nation.”
Ezekiel 38:12 - “I will go to those once desolate cities that are now filled with people again, those who have returned from all the nations, and the whole earth revolves around them. This will happen in the distant future, in the latter years of history.
The new state of Israel now contains people who have come from 100 different countries, speaking 60 different languages and the trek homeward continues to this day.
Zechariah 12:2,3,7, & 9 (Written 520 years before the birth of Christ) - I will make Jerusalem and Judah like a cup of poison to all the nearby nations that send their armies to surround her. Jerusalem will be a heavy stone burdening the world and though all the nations of the world unite in an attempt to move her, they will all be crushed. For my plan is to destroy all nations that come against Jerusalem.
Zechariah 2: 4 & 7 - Jerusalem will some day be so full of people she won’t have room enough for all. I scattered you to the winds, but I will bring you back again.
This is the whole problem with Palestine and Israel right now. There is not enough room for all of the Jews coming home and they are building settlements in Palestinian territory.
According to this atheist all this was common knowledge during the time it was written. And then we have the common knowledge of who the Saviour would be a thousand or more years in advance.
From the seed of Abraham
The Prophecy - Genesis 22:18 (Written about 1440 years before Jesus was born)
“And in your seed all the nations of the world shall be blessed.” (God speaking to Abraham).
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 1:1
“The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.”
This determines that of all the races of the world, we could look for The Saviour to come from the Hebrew race.
Son of Isaac
The Prophecy - Genesis 21:12 (Written about 1440 years before Jesus was born).
“For Isaac is the son through whom My promise will be fulfilled.” (See Matthew chapter 1for a continuation of Jesus’ genealogy record)
Abraham had two sons. God eliminates one half of the lineage of Abraham in prophesying the lineage of Jesus.
Son of Jacob
The Prophecy - Numbers 24:17 (Written about 1400 years before Jesus was born)
“I see in the future of Israel, far down the distant trail that there shall come a star from Jacob, this ruler of Israel.”
Isaac had two sons. God eliminates one half of the lineage of Isaac prophesying the lineage of Jesus
Tribe of Judah
The Prophecy - Genesis 49:10 (Written about 1440 years before Jesus was born).
“The sceptre shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.”
Jacob had 12 sons out of which came the 12 tribes of Israel. God eliminates eleven of the twelve tribes of Israel in prophesying the lineage of Jesus.
Family line of Jesse
The Prophecy - Isaiah 11:1 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“The royal line of Jesse will be cut off, chopped down like a tree. But from the stump will grow a shoot, yes a new branch, the Messiah from the old root.”
House of David
The Prophecy - Isaiah 23:5 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“ For the time is coming says the Lord, when I will place a righteous branch upon King David’s throne. He shall be a King who shall rule with wisdom and justice.”
Jesse had at least eight sons. Now God eliminates all of Jesse’s sons except David in prophesying the lineage of Jesus.
Born at Bethlehem
The Prophecy - Micah 5:2 - (Written about 750 years before Jesus was born)
“O Bethlehem you are but a small Judean village, yet you will be the birthplace of my King who is alive from ages past.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 2:1
“Jesus was born in the town of Bethlehem of Judea.”
God, in prophecy, now eliminates all the cities and towns in the world but one for the entrance of His Son to planet earth.
Preceded by a messenger
The Prophecy - Isaiah 40:3 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“I hear a voice calling in the wilderness, make a road for the Lord.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 3:1
“John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness.”
Ministry to begin in Galilee
The Prophecy - Isaiah 9:1 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“But there will be no more gloom for her who was in anguish in the land of Zebulun and Neaphtali, by the way of the sea on the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 4:12
“He withdrew into Galilee and leaving Nazareth He came and settled in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the region of Zebulun and Neaphtale. From that time Jesus began to preach.”
Ministry of Miracles
The Prophecy - Isaiah 35:5 & 6 (Written about 690 years before Jesus was born).
“Then the eyes of the blind will be opened, the ears of the deaf will be unstopped, the lame will leap like deer, the tongue of the dumb will shout for joy.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 11:4 & 5
Jesus said, “Tell John about the miracles you’ve seen Me do, the blind I’ve healed, the deaf who hear and the dead raised to life. And tell him about Me preaching the good news.”
Teacher of parables
The Prophecy - Psalm 78:2 (Written over many centuries but completed about 300 years before Jesus was born).
“I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings of old.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 13:14
“All these things spoke Jesus to the multitudes in parables and He was not talking to them without a parable.”
Enter Jerusalem on a donkey
The Prophecy - Zechariah 9:9 (Written about 520 years before Jesus was born)
“Rejoice greatly oh My people, shout with joy, for look, your King is coming , He is the righteous one, the victor, yet He is lowly, riding on a donkey’s colt.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 21:2,4, & 5
“Just as you enter the village you will find a donkey tied there with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them here.”
Stumbling stone to the unbelievers
The Prophecy - Psalm 118:22 (Written over many centuries but completed about 300 years before Jesus was born).
“The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - 1 Peter 2:7 (Peter was one of Jesus’ closest friends and followers. In any list of disciples, Peter’s name always appears first. Peter was an eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus)
“He is very precious to you who believe and to those who reject Him, well the same stone that was rejected by the builders has become the cornerstone. He is the stone that some will stumble over and the rock that will make them fall. They will stumble because they will not listen to God’s word or obey it.”
Resurrection
The Prophecy - Psalm 16:10 (Written over many centuries but completed about 300 years before Jesus was born).
“For you will not leave me among the dead. You will not allow your beloved one to rot in the grave.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Acts 2:31
“He was neither abandoned to hades nor did His flesh suffer decay.”
(Acts was written by Luke. He was a physician and a historian of extraordinary detail and accuracy. The Gospel bearing his name was the work of what today might be called investigative journalism. Luke was a convert to Christianity and took part in the ministry of the early Church).
The following were prophesied from 1000 - 500 years before Jesus was born but were all fulfilled in one day.
Betrayed by a friend
The Prophecy - Psalm 41:9 - “Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread has lifted up his heel against me.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:49 & 56 - “So now Judas came straight to a Jesus and embraced Him in a friendly manner. Jesus said, “My friend, go and do what you have come for.”
Sold for 30 Pieces of silver
The Prophecy - Zephaniah 11:12 - “If you like give me my pay, what ever I’m worth. So they counted out 30 silver coins.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:15 - “Judas asked how much will you pay me and they gave him 30 silver coins.”
Money thrown into God’s house
The Prophecy - Zechariah 11:13 - “And the Lord told me, toss it into the temple treasury this magnificent sum they value you at. So I took the thirty coins and threw them in.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:5 - “And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed.”
Forsaken by his disciples
The Prophecy - Zechariah 13:7 - “Strike down the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:56 - “Jesus said, This is all happening to fulfil the words of the prophets. At that point all the disciples deserted Him and fled.”
Accused by false witness
The Prophecy - Psalm 35:11 - “These evil men swear to a lie. They accuse me of things I have never even heard about.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 26:59 - “The entire Jewish supreme court assembled and looked for witnesses who would lie about Jesus.”
Quiet before his accusers
The Prophecy - Isaiah 53:7 - “He was oppressed and He was afflicted yet He never said a word.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:12 - “And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, he made no answer.”
Hands and feet pierced
The Prophecy - Psalm 22:16 - “They pierced my hands and feet.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Luke 23:33 - “And when they came to the place called the skull, they crucified him.”
Crucifixion had not come into the Jewish system until hundreds of years after Psalms was written. It was unheard of at the time of Psalms.
Made intercession for his persecutors
The Prophecy - Isaiah 53:12 - “Yet He bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Luke 23:34 - “Father forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Hated without cause
The Prophecy - Psalm 69:4 - “Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 15:25 - “Jesus said, “But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled - They hated Me without cause.”
Friends stood afar off
The Prophecy - Psalm 38:11 - My loved ones and my friends stay away, even my own family stands at a distance.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Luke 23:49 - “All His acquaintances and the women who accompanied Him from Galilee were standing at a distance seeing these things.”
People shook their heads
The Prophecy - Psalm 109:25 - I also have become a reproach to them. When they see me they wag their heads.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:39 - Those who were passing by were hurling abuse at Him, wagging their heads.”
Garments parted and lots cast
The Prophecy - Psalm 22:18 - They divided my garments among them and for my clothing they cast lots.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 19:23 & 24 - The soldiers took his outer garments and made four parts. They said “lets not tear the tunic, but cast lots for it.” (John was Jesus’ closest friend. He looked after Jesus’ mother after her son’s execution. He was an eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus).
Gall and vinegar offered Him
The Prophecy - Psalm 69:21 - They gave me gall for my food. For my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:34 - They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.
His forsaken cry
The Prophecy - Psalm 22:1 - “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:46 - About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me.”
Committed himself to God
The Prophecy - Psalm 31:5 - “Into they hand I commit My spirit.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:46 - Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Father into they hands I commit My spirit.”
Bones not broken
The Prophecy - Psalm 34:20 - He keeps all his bones, not one of them is broken.”
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 19:33 - When they saw that He was already dead, they did not break his legs.”
His side pierced
The Prophecy - Zechariah 12:10 - They will look on me whom they have pierced.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - John 19:34 - But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear.
Darkness at noon
The Prophecy - Amos 8:9 - I shall make the sun go down at noon and make the earth dark in broad daylight.
The Fulfilment of that Prophecy - Matthew 27:45 - Now from the sixth hour darkness fell upon all the land until the ninth hour.
Buried in a rich man’s grave
The Prophecy - Isaiah 53:9 - He was buried like a criminal in a rich man’s grave.”
The Prophecy - Matthew 27:57 - There came a rich man from Arimathea and took the body and laid it in his own tomb.
Jesus had no control over the prophecies about:
1. Place of birth
2. Time of birth
3. Manner of birth
4. Betrayal
5. Manner of death
6. People’s reaction
7 Piercing, and
8. Burial
Professor Peter Stoner, Editor of ‘Science Digest’ has calculate that the odds of the 20 prophecies of what happened to Jesus on the last day of His life here on earth, to be 10 to the power of minus 157, against them coming true in one man, accidentally. Scientists agree that 10 to minus 50 is the same as zero - impossible.
To those who encountered Him but refused to believe what He taught, Jesus had this to say.
(John 5:46 & 47) Jesus said, “It is not I who will accuse you before the Father, Moses will. For you have refused to believe Moses. He wrote about Me but you refuse to believe him, so you refuse to believe Me. Since you don’t believe what Moses wrote, no wonder you don’t believe Me either.”
(Matthew 13:17) Jesus said, “For I tell the truth, many prophets longed to see what you see and hear what you hear.”
(Mark 12:36) Jesus said, “When David spoke, the Holy Spirit was speaking through him when he said it.”
(John 10:34) Jesus said, “The Scriptures cannot be untrue.”
To neglect such awesome evidence will surely come at an awesome cost. Jesus promises however that to respond positively will come with an awesome reward.
Jesus was talking about the same Scriptures we have today. In the next two verses, Jesus indicates that “all” of the Old Testament included prophecy of His coming.
(Luke 24:25 & 27) “How foolish you have been and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken.” And beginning with the Law and all the Prophets, Jesus explained to them what was said in all the Scripture about Him.”
(Luke 24:44) Jesus said, “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Perhaps this atheist was thinking of something else when he said, “There is nothing in the Bible that is beyond the knowledge of man at that time.”
Regardless of atheist’s ignorance, human nature has not changed one iota since the Bible was written. This Book has described human nature perfectly, beginning with Genesis and following through to Revelation. Anything of value that I’ve learned during years of education regarding human nature can also be found in the Bible.
One thing that the Bible bears out is that Truth is not affected by time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)