Tag Archives: New Testament

Commentary

Does Christianity justify violence against innocent people?

1 Comment

Here’s a post from the Evangelical Philosophical Society.

Excerpt:

To properly assess a true Christian ethic of violence we must focus on Christianity’s distinguishing person, Jesus Christ, and Christianity’s distinguishing text, the New Testament. And when we do so, what do we find? A consistent ethic of non-violence. Consider the following:

The Example of Christ – Jesus’ entire life was characterized by peace and reconciliation, earning him the moniker “Prince of Peace.”Even in the face of extreme injustice and merciless torture, he did not resist his abusers. Jesus even rebuked a disciple for resorting to violence to defend him (Mt. 26:52).

The Ministry of Christ – Jesus consistently worked for peace and reconciliation. He declared, “blessed are the peacemakers” (Mt. 5:9) and instructed people to “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you (Luke 6:27-28). Jesus explicitly taught an ethic of personal non-violence, saying, “Do not [violently] resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also” (Mt. 5:39).

Other New Testament Teachings – The Apostle Paul taught fellow Christians to live peacefully with others, saying, “so far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Rom. 12:18).He makes the same admonition repeatedly (see I Cor. 7:15; 1 Cor. 14:33; 2 Cor. 13:11; and 1 Thess. 5:13). Paul and Peter also expressly reject rebellion against government authorities (Rom. 13:1-3; 1 Pet. 2:13-17).

The influence of these teachings in the history of the church is well-known, including:1) significant pacifist theological traditions (e.g., the Quakers and Mennonites), 2) Christian non-violent social movements (e.g. anti-war organizations, anti-death penalty groups, and Martin Luther King’s work in the civil rights movement), and 3) Christian martyrdom, as thousands of believers have been, and continue to be, tortured and killed rather than to violently defend themselves against oppressors.

The burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that Jesus’ teachings or actions justify violence against innocent people.

Commentary

Do naturalistic theories account for the minimal facts about Jesus’ resurrection?

4 Comments

Here’s a neat post from Ichtus77 on her blog of the same name. She lists 12 facts that are admitted by the majority of New Testament scholars across the broad spectrum of worldviews, including atheistic scholars.

Excerpt:

I am studying “the twelve facts” and want to get down what I’ve got so far. After the facts are displayed, we’re going to turn the whole thing into a logic puzzle.

Here are the 12 Facts:

  1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion.
  2. He was buried, most likely in a private tomb.
  3. Soon afterwards the disciples were discouraged, bereaved and despondent, having lost hope.
  4. Jesus’ tomb was found empty very soon after his interment.
  5. The disciples had experiences that they believed were the actual appearances of the risen Christ.
  6. Due to these experiences, the disciples lives were thoroughly transformed. They were even willing to die for their belief.
  7. The proclamation of the Resurrection took place very early, from the beginning of church history.
  8. The disciple’s public testimony and preaching of the Resurrection took place in the city of Jerusalem, where Jesus had been crucified and buried shortly before.
  9. The gospel message centered on the preaching of the death and resurrection of Jesus.
  10. Sunday was the primary day of worshiping and gathering.
  11. James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic before this time, became a follower of Jesus when he believed he also saw the risen Jesus.
  12. Just a few years later, Paul became a believer, due to an experience that he also believed was an appearance of the risen Jesus.

These are the facts that you see admitted in debates by atheistic historians, like in the debate between James Crossley and William Lane Craig.

The resurrection puzzle is like a Sherlock Holmes mystery. People deduce what happened from the evidence that is considered to be unimpeachable. The “minimal facts” that EVERYONE accept in debates. The reason why everyone accepts these facts is because they pass the historical criteria which are used everywhere by everyone to determine what is parts of historical writings are authentic. The historical tests for historical records take into account things like how many sources a asserted fact is in, and how early the sources are, and so on.

So the approach is like this:

1) Use historical tests to get undeniable historical facts
2) Try to explain the undeniable historical facts with a hypothesis

Like Sherlock Holmes says: “…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

It’s the Sherlock Holmes method of doing history.

So, Ichtus77 lists the minimal facts, and in the rest of the post she surveys the following naturalistic hypotheses to see how well they can account for the minimal facts listed above.

Here are the naturalistic theories:

  • The Unknown Tomb theory
  • The Wrong Tomb theory
  • The Twin theory
  • The Hallucination theory
  • The Existential Resurrection and the Spiritual Resurrection theories
  • The Disciples Stole Body theory
  • The Authorities Hid Body theory
  • The Swoon theory
  • The Passover Plot theory

The main way that scholars argue for the resurrection is to list the minimal facts, and defend them on historical grounds, then show that there is no naturalistic hypothesis that explains them all. The resurrection hypothesis explains all the data.

Podcasts

Does God behave badly? Brian Auten interviews David T. Lamb

Leave a comment

Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 interviews Old Testament scholar David T. Lamb on his new book “God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist?“, a book which is intended for the lay Christians who want to reconcile the New Testament and Old Testament portraits of God.

The MP3 file is here.

About David T. Lamb’s academic credentials:

  • Doctor of Philosophy, Theology (Old Testament)(2005), University of Oxford
  • Master of Philosophy, Theology (Old Testament)(2002), University of Oxford
  • Master of Divinity (2000), Fuller Theological Seminary
  • Master of Science, Industrial Engineering (1985), Stanford University
  • Bachelor of Arts, Economics (1984), Stanford University

Summary:

  • Lamb’s testimony and experience in campus ministry
  • Lamb’s decision to go to graduate school become a Christian scholar
  • Lamb’s new book and its’ intended audience (it’s for beginners!)
  • Why Christians should read more in the Old Testament
  • Why we need to look at the positive and negative texts in the Old Testament
  • Are the portraits of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament compatible?
  • Is the Old Testament picture of God loving or harsh?
  • What are some of the examples that people point to when they say God is angry?
  • Are there general any guidelines for answering hard passages of the Bible?
  • Is the Old Testament God sexist?
  • What does the Old Testament say about women?
  • Is the Old Testament God racist?
  • What are some examples where other nations are treated well by God?
  • Don’t the laws in the Old Testament make God look legalistic and strict?

This book is similar to Paul Copan’s “Is God a Moral Monster?“, but that book is less introductory than Lamb’s book. It also engages more directly with the New Atheists than Lamb’s book.

Brian also interviewed Paul Copan about his book, and you can listen to that interview on Brian’s site.