Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam: Ivey Conerly

Note: If you are unfamiliar with the background to this, please watch:

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus (Muslim Version)

A Christian Response to Kamal Saleh's Islamic Video

Who Wrote the Gospels?

One often hears the claim, made frequently by skeptical scholars and laypeople alike, that we have no grounds on which to think the four canonical gospels were actually written by the people to whom they are ascribed. The original documents, we are told, were written in anonymity, the attributions being added by scribes at a later date. This claim is made frequently by the notorious textual critic Bart Ehrman. Is Ehrman's assessment correct here, however? Do we have any evidence which might indicate the authorship of the four gospels?

Ehrman is actually mistaken in his assertion that we know the original documents did not bear the name of their author. As Ehrman knows full well (he's constantly reminding us), we don’t have the original documents in our possession (as is the case for all sources of that time period) and so we couldn’t possibly know for sure one way or the other. But I think there is positive indication that the gospels were written by the persons to whom they were attributed by the early church (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

One example would be the fact that two of the gospels are ascribed to such minor characters as Mark and Luke -- neither of whom, by any accounts, were themselves eyewitnesses. Had a forger wanted to acquire credibility for his writing he would undoubtedly have attributed it to someone like Peter, Thomas or James (as the later second and third century Gnostic gospels did).

Actually, there is some compelling evidence (both external and internal) that Mark penned the eyewitness accounts of Peter. For example, Justin Martyr, writing around A.D. 150, spoke of Mark's Gospel as "the memoirs of Peter." He suggested that Mark wrote down his material when he was in Italy (which concurs with other early tradition which indicates that the gospel of Mark was penned in Rome for the benefit of the Christians there. Iraeneus (writing approx. A.D. 185) referred to Mark as "the disciple and interpreter of Peter." Most famously, Papias, the bishop of Hieropolis (writing approx. A.D. 140) wrote,

"And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this: Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherfore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some sayings as he remembered them. For one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

It is curious, then, that Mark's gospel did not become “the gospel according to Peter” but, rather, “the gospel according to Mark”.

I also think that the gospel traditionally attributed to John claims that authorship. It refers throughout to the certain “disciple whom Jesus loved”, a disciple who is clearly John but who is never mentioned by name. Given that John is a very prominant disciple in the three other gospels (the synoptics name the Apostle John approximately 20 times), this is very curious indeed, and suggests that the author assumed his readers would know who the author was. In the final chapter of John’s gospel, he writes, “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.” In addition, there is some strong external corroboration for the Johanine authorship of John's gospel. Irenaeus (A.D. 130-200), who was a student of Polycarp (A.D. 70-160), who in turn was student of the apostle John, testifies to the Johanine authorship of John and asserts that it was written when John was in Ephesus and when he was well on in years.

There is also some supportive evidence, I think, for the traditional authorship of Luke. Apart from being another fairly minor character (and not one of the twelve disciples), we also know that Acts of the Apostles is written by the same individual as Luke’s gospel. From Acts 16 onwards, the narrator routinely employs the pronouns “we” and “us”, which suggests that the narrator is in close contact with Paul and his companions. Moreover, much of the information relayed in Acts is unlikely to be known by an individual who had not completed that trip -- or, at the very least, been in contact with someone who had. Indeed, Paul, in his letters, refers to his companion Luke three times (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24).

The evidence for the authorship of Matthew's gospel is weaker than for the other three. Matthew's gospel would certainly have to have been written by someone who was familiar with the time and place (e.g. see Peter William's lecture here). The Gospel's authorship, as is the case for all four gospels, goes unchallenged in the early church. In his Ecclesiastical History, the church historian Eusebius (A.D. 265-339) quotes Origen (A.D. 185-254), stating,

"Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publician, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism."

To conclude, there is no good reason to doubt the traditional authorship of the four gospels, and there are various internal and external indicators to suggest that the traditional authorship is correct. I could continue in the same vein, listing such evidences, for some time. For a fuller discussion of the topic, I refer readers to Richard Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

What is the Origin of Digital Information Found in DNA?

John Lennox to Lecture in Edinburgh Next Monday

From here:

Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target

John Lennox of Oxford University argues the case against the views of 'new atheists' such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom he has debated in person. He argues that their methodology is both flawed and unscientific, and does not give a sound basis for ethics. Followed by an opportunity to ask questions and refreshments.

• Phone: 0131 451 4508
• Email: m.boulogne@hw.ac.uk

Date: Monday 6th February
Time: 6:30pm
Venue: Heriot-Watt University: James Watt Centre 1, Edinburgh.

Is There a Conflict Between Science and Faith?

The Makings of an Intelligent Design Theorist: Biochemist Mike Behe On How He Came To Doubt Darwinism

A Sunday Quote

"Faith is not a leap in the dark; it's the exact opposite. It's a commitment based on evidence... It is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridicule. That provides a very anti-intellectual and convenient way of avoiding intelligent discussion." John Lennox

The Trinity Defended

The doctrine of the Trinity has come under increasing attack over recent years from a variety of groups. Some of these groups (such as Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses) deny that this doctrine is even found in Scripture. They are often quick to point out that the word "trinity" is to be found nowhere in the Bible. This is correct. While the phraseology is not found in Scripture, however, the concept most certainly is.

In this article, I want to provide a definition of this important doctrine, explaining what exactly the Trinity is, as well as what is isn't. I shall then examine the Scriptures to see whether they provide adequate substantiation of this concept.

So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about the Trinity? Writing in the early third century, in his Against Praxeas, Tertullian is credited with first employing the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to convey the idea of the Father, Son and Spirit being "one in essence -- but not one in person". Indeed, Tertullian writes,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This concept was established as church orthodoxy at the famous Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."

It is this definition that I am going to assume in the discussion that follows. Succinctly, then, the doctrine of the Trinity may be defined thusly: Within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-divine distinct persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely. This concept is not to be confused with polytheism, which maintains that there are multiple gods. While orthodox Christianity emphatically holds there to be only one God, we nonetheless understand God to be complex in his unity. The concept is also not to be confused with the ancient heresy of modalism, which maintains that God exists in three different modes. The Son has never been the Father and the Holy Spirit has never been the Son or the Father. Modalism is refuted by the picture given to us in all four gospels (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) in which the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove and a voice is heard from Heaven "This is my beloved Son. With him I am well pleased." Similarly, it should be noted that the Father, Son and Spirit do not each make up merely a third of the Godhead. Rather, each of the three persons is God in the full and complete sense of the word.

Having shown that Scripture emphatically rejects the notion that the Father, Son and Spirit are synonymous persons, only five propositions remain to be demonstrated in order to provide Biblical substantiation for the concept of the Trinity. Those propositions are:

1. There is only one eternal God.
   
2. The Father is the eternal God.
3. The Son is the eternal God.
4. The Holy Spirit is the eternal God.
5. Although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are non-synonymous persons, the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.

Why Apologetics? Dan Strange

Dan Strange Apologetics from Oak Hill College on Vimeo.

Duelling Professors: John Lennox and Peter Atkins Debate the Existence of God

Are the Biblical Genealogies Helpful in Establishing the Age of Man?

In 1650, James Ussher, the archbishop of Ireland, produced a detailed Biblical timeline, going all the way back to the creation of man and the Universe. Based largely on the genealogies given in Genesis 5 and 11, this chronology famously placed the creation of Adam and Eve in the year 4,004 B.C. Indeed, such a view is espoused by many Bible-believing Christians, even today. But just how sound is this view? Are Christians really committed to the view that the creation of man happened no more than 6,000 years ago? It is my personal view that using the Biblical records in this manner is ultimately misguided, and misunderstands the nature of ancient genealogies. One crucial assumption, which is employed in Ussher’s calculation, is the notion that the relevant genealogies are complete: That is to say, they contain no gaps or missing names. But are these genealogies actually complete as Ussher supposed? Here, I attempt to show that such an assumption is unfounded.

Much of the misunderstanding surrounding these genealogies results because we are reading them in modern English and in the context of modern western culture. The genealogies were written in ancient Hebrew and represent ancient Jewish culture. For one thing, the Hebrew word for “son” (ben) can mean “son”, “grandson”, “great grandson” or “descendent”. And, likewise, “father” (Hebrew ab) can mean "father", "grandfather", "great-grandfather" or "ancestor". For example, in Genesis 28:13, God says to Jacob, “I am the LORD the God of your father Abraham and the God of Isaac”. But Abraham wasn’t the father of Jacob. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Abraham was the father of Isaac, thus making Abraham the grandfather of Jacob. That being said, however, the verb used in Genesis 5 and 11 is the Hebrew “yalad” and is translated “became the father of” in the NIV and “begat” in the KJV. So, it does not even use the word “father” (ab), but rather “yalad” (which is similarly flexible in its meaning). This verb can mean giving birth to someone who is ancestral to the next person named (with many generations skipped). One example of this is the genealogy of Moses in Exodus 6. These genealogies report that Amram and his wife Jochebed “begat” (Hebrew yalad) Moses (two times) and refers to him as “son” (Hebrew ben). Thus, on at least two occasions, it uses the very same verb as used in Genesis 5 and 11. But what is important to notice here is that Amram and Jochebed lived at the time when the Jews entered Egypt while Moses was 80 years old during the exodus some 430 years later. This entails that approximately 350 years (and likely a minimum of 6 generations) lies between Amram/Jochebed and Moses. Thus, literally, it should be rendered ‘Jochebed begat a son (unnamed) who was ancestral to Moses’.

Peter Atkins to debate UK Apologetics blogger

So, I've just heard that Peter Atkins has agreed to debate with me on the question, "Does God Exist?" The debate will take place in Oxford on April 27th, 2012. I, for one, am very excited about this, with the opportunity to debate a distinguished proponent of atheism and also to contend for the faith in a largely secular and apathetic city. Prayers that people would consider the claims of Christ as a result of the debate would be enormously appreciated, as would prayers for my preparation (it's just a few weeks before my university finals) and confidence in debate!

Any readers are more than welcome to come - look forward to seeing you there!

Calum

NT Wright Lectures on the Historicity of Jesus' Resurrection

Why I Cannot Support Same Sex Marriage

Same sex marriage has been a very topical subject in Scotland over recent months, with the launch of a consultation by the Scottish National Party (SNP) — which closed on Friday 9th December — on whether marriage in Scotland should be redefined to effectively legalise gay marriage and religious ceremonies for civil partnerships.

The Scottish government has stated that it was its original position that marriage should be redefined, though Nicola Sturgeon — the Health Secretary — has said that religious organisations should not be forced to perform same-sex weddings should they not want to. It will be very interesting to see how long that lasts. After all, SNP MSP John Mason — a Christian — sparked a row last year following his support for a parliamentary motion that no religious group should be compelled to approve of or facilitate same-sex unions. According to Nicola Sturgeon, a survey of Scottish Social Attitudes has revealed that over 60% of Scots endorse the proposed change, with 19% dissenting.

The Most Terrifying Truth of Scripture is that God is Good: Paul Washer

Do Shared Endogenous Retroviral Elements Prove Our Shared Ancestry With Primates?

One often comes across the oft-repeated claim that the pattern and distribution of shared endogenous retroviral elements in primate genomes evidences their common descent. In this blog post, I want to consider the merits of this argument and consider whether alternative hypotheses may be potent in explaining the observed scientific data.

What Is An Endogenous Retrovirus (ERV)?
A retrovirus is an RNA virus, the genome of which is reverse transcribed into DNA inside a host cell, using an enzyme called reverse transcriptase. The DNA then becomes incorporated into the genome of the host organism, using another enzyme called integrase. Retroviruses belong to the viral family Retroviridae, and are enveloped viruses — meaning they possess viral envelopes, typically composed of proteins and phospholipids, covering their protein capsids. Viral envelopes also contain some viral glycoproteins which assist in its access to the interior of the host cell. Glycoproteins on the surface of the envelope identify and bind to receptor sites on the membrane of the host cell, facilitating fusion of the host’s membrane and the viral envelope. This, in turn, allows the entry of the viral genome and capsid into the host cell’s interior.

An endogenous retrovirus is a special kind of retrovirus which invades the germline and thus becomes inherited by the organism’s progeny and subsequent future generations. Once the retrovirus has undergone reverse transcription in the cytoplasm and integrated into the host organism’s genome, the retroviral DNA is referred to as a “provirus”. The virus then undergoes the normal processes of transcription and translation in order to express the viral genes.

Retroviral Structure


As you can see from the accompanying diagram [source], there are three significant protein-coding genes associated with the retroviral genome: gag; pol; and env. These genes encode for viral proteins including the viral matrix, capsid, nucleoproteins, reverse transcriptase, integrase, and the envelope protein. Gag proteins are major components of the viral capsid (present in about two to four thousand copies per virion). The protein Protease functions in proteolytic cleavage to produce mature gag and pol proteins. The pol proteins are basically responsible for the synthesis of viral DNA and subsequent insertion into the genome of the host following infection. The env proteins play a part in the entry of the virion into the host cell’s interior.

In addition to gag, pol and env, retroviruses are characterized by the 5′ and 3′ long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences. These LTR sequences can be thought of as the control center for gene expression. Retroviruses have somewhat typical eukaryotic promoters with transcriptional enhancers. Some, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and mouse mammary tumor virus (MMTV), even have regulatory elements which are responsive to either viral or specialized cellular (e.g. hormonal) trans-activating factors.

All of the requisite signals for gene expression (i.e. enhancer, promoter, transcription initiation, transcription terminator and polyadenylation signal) are found in the LTR sequences. The LTRs each contain two unique non-protein-coding sequences, called U5 (at the 5′ end) and U3 (at the 3′ end), which are responsible for encoding particular controlling elements. The enhancer and other transcription regulatory signals are contained in the U3 region (which is at the 3′ end) of the 5′ LTR. Approximately 25 bp from the start of the LTR sequence the promoter TATA box is located. And thus the 5′ LTR operates as a promoter for RNA polymerase II. In contrast, the 3′ LTR does not ordinarily serve as a promoter, but rather acts in transcription termination and polyadenylation. But when the 5′ LTR is compromised or its integrity is disrupted, the 3′ LTR can serve as a promoter.

The Gospel for Muslims: Dr. James White

The Finely Tuned Genetic Code

Francis Crick regarded the genetic code found in nature as a "frozen accident." Yet more and more it is looking to be the case that this code is exquisitely finely tuned -- with features suggesting it is indeed one in a million. Therefore ought not purposive or intelligent design be regarded as a legitimate inference, as the best explanation for how the code came into existence?

We are all familiar with the genetic code by virtue of which an mRNA transcript is translated into the amino acid residues that form proteins. Triplets of nucleotides -- called "codons" -- serve as "molecular words," each of them specifying a particular amino acid or the stop sites of open reading frames (ORFs). Ribosomes and tRNA-methionine complexes (called "charged" methionyl tRNAs) attach near the 5' end of the mRNA molecule at the initiation codon AUG (which specifies the amino acid methionine) and begin to translate its ribonucleotide sequences into the specific amino acid sequence necessary to form a functional protein. Each amino acid becomes attached at its carboxyl terminus to the 3' end of its own species of tRNA by an enzyme known as amino-acyl tRNA synthetase.

Two sites exist on a ribosome for activated tRNAs: the peptidyl site and the amino-acyl site (P site and A site respectively). The initiation codon, carrying methionine, enters the P site. The 3' UAC 5' anticodon of the tRNA is paired with the complementary 5' AUG 3' mRNA codon. The second tRNA enters the A site. An enzymatic part of the ribosome called peptidyl transferase then creates a peptide bond to link the two amino acids. Upon formation of the peptide bond, the amino-acyl bond that connected the amino acid to its corresponding tRNA is broken, and the tRNA is thus able to leave the P site. This is followed by ribosomal translocation to position a new open codon in the empty A site and also move the second tRNA -- which is now bonded to a dipeptide -- from the A to the P site. And so the cycle repeats until the occurrence of a stop codon that prevents further chain elongation.

For a visual illustration of how this works in practice, I refer readers to the following short animation:

The total number of possible RNA triplets amounts to 64 different codons. Of those, 61 specify amino acids, with the remaining three (UAG, UAA and UGA) serving as stop codons, which halt the process of protein synthesis. Because there are only twenty different amino acids, some of the codons are redundant. This means that several codons can code for the same amino acid. The cellular pathways and mechanisms that make this 64-to-20 mapping possible is a marvel of molecular logic. It's enough to make any engineer to drool. But the signs of design extend well beyond the sheer engineering brilliance of the cellular translation apparatus. In this article, I will show several layers of design ingenuity exhibited by this masterpiece of nanotechnology.

The Case for the Empty Tomb

Over the course of my previous blog entries, I have discussed the various lines of evidence supporting the historical proposition that Jesus really did appear to individuals and groups of people following his death by crucifixion. In this blog entry, I want to consider some of the evidence pertaining to the vacancy of the tomb. While an establishment of the empty tomb may not, in and of itself, constitute compelling evidence for the resurrection, when taken in the context of the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus (which I have evidenced previously), it adds to a very compelling cumulative argument.

The Gospels and Acts as History: Dr. Timothy McGrew

What Genre are the Gospels?

 Hellenistic Biographies

Its obvious when reading through the Gospels that the authors present a form of biography. However its also obvious that for anyone who has read any modern biography that the two present very different approaches. Most modern biographies present intricate details of the person from their birth until their death and are much longer. Whereas the Gospels have very little to say about Jesus from his birth until the age of thirty, when he began his ministry and are very short in comparison. Yet the Gospels quite clearly include biographical data about Jesus and clearly present Jesus in a historical and geographical context. This is demonstrated by Jesus crucifixion under Pontius Pilate whist serving in his role as Prefect of Judea circa AD 26-36, which is included in all four Gospels. The Gospels present us with other historical figures [King Herod, Caiphus etc] that allow us to place where and when these things occurred unlike ancient mythology as some would suggest the Gospels present. It also presents Jesus in many geographically locations that are still there today for us to validate. So its clear that although the Gospels may differ from modern-day biographies they still attempt to present us with accurate biographical and historically information about Jesus.

Increasingly scholars [Richard A. Burridge, Ben Witherington III, David E Aune etc] are suggesting that the Gospels are a form of ancient Hellenistic biography. I shall briefly demonstrate why this is thought to be the case.

A Sunday Quote

"There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition." - Blaise Pascal Pensees #430

Voice of the Martyrs and the Resurrection

In previous blog posts, I began to examine the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, building a cumulative argument based on ancient Hebrew and pagan beliefs regarding the resurrection, in addition to the Jewish Messianic expectations and the early oral creed quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. In this article, I want to take a look at some of the evidence from first century Christian martyrs.

What is the value in studying the martyrdom of the first-generation eyewitnesses of the resurrection? For one thing, the persecution and martyrdom of these early disciples serves to confirm that, at minimum, they sincerely believed their message to be true. But since their claim was that they had been first hand eye-witnesses, their willingness to face persecution and in most cases martyrdom was not based on a religious or faith-based commitment, nor an oral tradition. Rather, it was based on something which they had actually seen first-hand with their own eyes. Many people have been martyred over the centuries for a religious belief. But how many have died for the advancement and propagation of a known lie? To the contrary, when life or liberty is at stake, multi-party conspiracies invariably break down.

As J.P. Moreland explains,

“The disciples had nothing to gain by lying and starting a new religion. They faced hardship, ridicule, hostility and martyr’s deaths. In light of this, they could have never sustained such unwavering motivation if they knew what they were preaching was a lie. The disciples were not fools and Paul was a cool-headed intellectual of the first rank. There would have been several opportunities over three to four decades of ministry to reconsider and renounce the lie.”

One must take caution with such an argument, however, since many of the accounts of the fates of the disciples come too late to be of substantial value, and many of the accounts have clearly been legendarily embellished. We can, however, establish the martyrdom of some of the alleged eyewitnesses for their faith. My case, will largely be based, therefore, on those whom we can confidently affirm did meet this fate.

The Cambridge Union Debate: William Lane Craig & Peter S Williams vs. Andrew Copson & Arif Ahmed

The motion for this debate was "This House Believes that God is not a Delusion". It took place before a packed house at the Cambridge Union Society on 20th October 2011, as a part of William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith Tour 2011.

Enjoy!

What is the Significance of the Creed Quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15?

In my previous post, I explored the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in the context of the Jewish Messianic expectations and the prevailing concepts regarding resurrection in the first century world. Over the course of the next few blog entries in this series, I want to consider some of the circumstantial historiographical evidence for the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples, friends and foes, starting with that early Creedal summary given in 1 Corinthians 15. What information can be learn from this early creed? Embedded below is one of the best videos on this subject, which provides a succinct yet informative summary of the importance, significance and evidential value of this passage regarding the resurrection.



What does 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 say?

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

The vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm that this passage is an old creed that goes back as early as Paul’s fact-finding mission in Jerusalem around 36A.D., when he spent a couple of weeks with James and Peter (Galatians 1). Paul is writing 1 Corinthians between 50 and 60 A.D., which is early in and of itself, the preserved creed takes as far back as no more than 2 or 3 years removed from the crucifixion event. The creed, therefore, must date back further still. Thus, it dates to within a short window of time following Christ’s death – such a short time span and personal contact makes the concept of the development of legendary accounts highly improbable. The fact that Paul mentions in his letter to the Galatian church his meeting with Peter and James, both of whom are mentioned specifically in the creed, gives this testimony extra weight.

Among the facts which have convinced scholars as to the creedal nature of this text are the following:

1. The creed comprises a summary that corresponds line by line with what the gospels teach.
2. Paul introduces it with the words ‘received’ and ‘delivered’, which are technical rabbinic terms indicating he’s passing along holy tradition.
3. The writing is highly stylised with non-Pauline characteristics
4. The original text uses Cephas for Peter, which is his Aramaic name. The Aramaic itself could in fact indicate a very early origin.
5. The creed uses several other primitive phrases that Paul would not customarily use, such as ‘the Twelve’, ‘the third day’, ‘he was raised’, etc.
6. The use of certain words is similar to Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew means of narration.

Facts such as those stated above have led Joachim Jeremias, an eminent scholar, to refer to this creed as ‘the earliest tradition of all’, and Ulrich Wilckens to conclude that the creed ‘indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity.’ Moreover, the Jewish New Testament scholar Pinchas Lapide affirms that the evidence in support of the creed is so strong that it ‘may be considered as a statement of eyewitnesses.’

In the next installment of this series, I shall consider the evidence and significance of the martyrdom of those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrection.

Was Jesus Seen Alive After His Death?

What do you think was the most significant event in human history? Unquestionably, the greatest event was the faint sound of a heartbeat in a cold lifeless body in a tomb two thousand years ago. The sound of blood rushing through the heart of Jesus of Nazareth is a sound which will undoubtedly thunder throughout eternity owing to its profound implications

Its significance lies in the fact that it constituted evidence that the Judge of the Universe had acknowledged that the payment for our sins had been accepted.

The bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead is God’s public vindication of his Son’s radical claims to divine authority. According to Acts 17:31, “God has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” The credibility of Christianity thus hangs on one straightforward question: Did Jesus Christ come back to life a few days after he died and was buried? His character, his claims and his relevance for today all hinges on this crucial issue.

The spin-off is stupendous. If Jesus is now no more than a handful of dust and bones slowly crumbling away somewhere on the outskirts of Jerusalem, the entire Christian faith lies buried with him; all its martyrs were mistaken; all its reformers deluded; all its church buildings are monuments to a myth; all its services are senseless and Easter Day is wishful thinking.

So how can one ascertain the answer to this critical question? Fortunately, as a worldview rooted in history, the Bible makes claims that can be investigated and verified academically.

In this blog series, I am going to approach the accounts of the resurrection not primarily as inspired Scripture, but rather as a collection of Greek documents purporting to have been written by first-hand eye witnesses of Jesus’ life and public ministry in the first century A.D. Laying aside any theological bias or presupposition we may have, let us approach these documents with objectivity – in the way that we would commonly regard any source of ancient history. In doing so, I aim to present the facts with integrity and allow readers to make up their own minds with respect to the grander claims and personhood of Christ, to whom I believe these facts decisively point.

What about evil committed in the name of Jesus Christ?

Watch as a Christian has a quick discussion with a nice, polite sceptic who discuss whether or not some of the bad things done in the past by 'Christians' discredits the Christian message.

Yes I do make the videos my-self and if people don't have time to watch the video, I've added the script so people can just read through it much more quickly. Hopefully this will be off some help for Christians who have wondered how to answer such an objection.

Nice sceptic - Hi, I am a nice sceptic

Christian- Hi, I am a Christian

Nice sceptic - If Christians are right about what they believe, how come so many Christians have committed so many atrocities in the name of Christianity?

Christian - That is a really good question, it’s important to note that even sceptics like yourself notice that what many so called Christians have done is in complete contrast to what Jesus actually taught his followers. Jesus taught his followers to Love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them. He told us to love and treat our neighbour as our selves, and gives an example of this in practice in his parable of the Good Samaritan. People must ignore Jesus words to do horrible things, not obey them!

Nice sceptic - Okay, but surely you must understand that this is a major barrier for some people? You will have to be quick; my bus will be here soon.

Christian - It’s important to understand that the truthfulness of something can't be falsified simply on the basis of what those who have labelled themselves as part of that group have, or haven't done.

Nice sceptic - Go on.

Christian - Well imagine that I just list all the bad things people have done who have labelled themselves as Atheists, and I use that as a reason to dismiss their claims. That would be unfair to Atheists, and it says nothing about whether what they believe is true or false. If we use the bad things people have done to prove them wrong, does that then mean we can name all the good things Christians have been responsible for, and conclude that Christianity must be true?

Nice sceptic - No I suppose not, if the argument cuts both ways and results in different conclusions, I suppose it is really a bad argument to use.

Christian - Christians are not perfect, and thankfully our salvation doesn't rest on us being good enough, but instead on Jesus' perfection and sacrifice on the cross, which allows us to seek God’s forgiveness. It’s important to remember that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian always is. Some people call themselves Christians simply because they live in the West, or they think they are still part of a Christian culture. Not necessarily because they are followers of Jesus, who have sought him for forgiveness and are seeking to obey what he taught. Historically there have always been people who have been part of the Church who have been there out of convenience rather than conviction.

Nice sceptic - Yes I suppose there’s some truth in that, before I was an Atheist my parents used to take me to Church, and I used to describe myself as a Christian, but I never believed any of it. I guess just going to Church doesn't make you a Christian either.

Christian - Yes you are right, but there is no denying that what you believe will have some affect on how you behave. Jesus taught that people will recognise his followers by their love for people, not for committing atrocities.

Nice sceptic - Well I have many other problems with Christianity, so even if I am mistaken with this argument, I still have plenty more questions to ask you when I have time.

Christian - One more quick example before your bus gets here, many people here in the UK considered themselves Christians for hundreds of years, often with little regard to whether or not they obeyed and lived how Jesus taught. Biblical language and rhetoric was simply part of the culture, this was because it was primarily the literature that everyone knew some part of. This is why it was so easy for people to misuse the Bible and use Jesus as the reason for their acts of evil. For every one person who has called themselves a Christian, and been part of some historical atrocity, there will be ten thousand people who have changed the world for the better in ways many people today don't appreciate. Whether that be through founding the first universities, schools for boys and girls, hospitals, charities, putting an end to modern slavery, creating a rational world-view that supported science, or standing up for the rights of infants and women.

Nice sceptic - Thanks for your time; my bus is here now, until next time. Bye.

Christian - Good to talk to you nice sceptic, bye.

Christ in the Story of Ruth

In previous blog posts, I have drawn attention to various Old Testament foreshadows and prototypes of Christ. In this article, I want to draw attention to yet another old testament parallel to Christ. This one occurs in the book of Ruth.

The story of Ruth begins with a man by the name of Elimelek, along with his wife Naomi and two sons Mahlon and Kilion, going to live in the country of Moab, in order to escape a famine. Tragically, Elimilek dies, leaving his widow Naomi with her two sons. The two sons both marry Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. The two sons die after having settled in the land for about a decade, and only Naomi and her two daughters-in-law remain.

Having learned that God had provided food in Bethlehem, Naomi sets out to return home from the land of Moab. She urges Orpah and Ruth to return to their own land to find another husband and start to rebuild their lives. Orpah complies with Naomi’s request, but Ruth insists on travelling back to Bethlehem with her mother-in-law.

The Fallacy of the Sign of Jonah Objection

I occasionally drop by an Islamic apologetics stall on Saturdays. It gives me the opportunity to learn more about Islam, read Muslim literature which is freely available, get to know people of an alternate worldview perspective, and, of course, share some of the rational justification for my own system of belief (i.e. Christianity). I think I have encountered the majority of the arguments which are frequently employed in such discussions between Muslims and Christians. For the most part, I find them less than impressive. Having listened to many of the most popular Islamic apologists (Zakir Naik, Ahmed Deedat, Khalid Yasin, Shabir Ally, among others) present their reasons for belief, I am pretty confident that the best they have to offer, in terms of rational argument, does not amount to much.

Anyway, recently I happened to be in the area, and so I dropped by the Islamic stall. And I encountered what is quite probably the weakest objection to Christianity frequently used in Islamic literature: The old “sign of Jonah” argument. If you have spent any significant amount of time talking to Muslims, you have probably encountered this argument. The objection springs from Matthew 12:38-40:

³⁸ Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.” ³⁹ He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Apologetics Training this Thursday Night in London

Apologetics: Has Science Buried God?

Thursday, January 19, 19.00 - 21.30


Hasn't science disproved God? Do we need a creator? What about evolution? And why is Christianity more plausible than atheism? Adrian Holloway will address these questions, helping us to think clearly and articulate the Christian faith in a relevant and compelling way.
This event is hosted by the Student Team, but is open to the whole church.
Location: The Crypt of St James' Clerkenwell Church, EC1R 0EA

Time: 19:00 - 21:30>
Cost: £2 (pay on entry)
Contact: joel@christchurchlondon.org

St James Church,
Clerkenwell Close,
London,
EC1R 0EA

If your in London make sure you make it there, especially if your a student.

The Nativity Defended

The Nativity and, in particular, the virgin birth has increasingly come under attack from liberal scholarship in recent years. Those committed to a naturalistic worldview dismiss the virgin birth of Jesus as fanciful. Some have even questioned whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem and whether Mary and Joseph's venture to this town was prompted by the Roman census as recorded by Luke.

Cherry Picking the Bible? Are Christians Expected to Follow the Levitical Laws?

This is an issue which comes up often, particularly in the context of discussions concerning the moral legitimacy of homosexuality and the institution of same-sex marriage. Now, my views on the issue of same-sex marriage fall into two categories — theological and sociological. While I think that there are good sociological arguments against the institution of same sex marriage, I also hold that homosexual behaviour is immoral for theological reasons. The Biblical basis for this view comes from a number of Scriptural passages. Among them is Leviticus 18, a chapter concerned exclusively with sexual sin. Verse 22 commands, “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” Mention of this passage routinely raises the objection, “But aren’t you cherry picking the Bible? After all, you don’t follow all those laws in Leviticus either. Do you refrain from wearing clothing woven from two kinds of material as prohibited in Leviticus 19:19? And do you obey the dietary laws outlined in Leviticus 11?” I get this objection put to me so often that I felt compelled to write a blog post addressing it. I trust that those who make this kind of objection will find this post informative.

Can Muhammad be found in the Song of Songs?

So there appears to be another popular claim put forward by many Muslims that the coming of Muhammed is foretold or prophesied in the Old Testament and more specifically in the Song of Songs . I've written previously on the supposed claims in the Gospel of John but this time I will briefly look at a passage in the 'Writings' part of the Old Testament found in the Song of Songs 5:16 below:

His mouth is most sweet,
and he is altogether desirable.
This is my beloved and this is my friend,
O daughters of Jerusalem.

Before we really get into whether or not this claim is valid or not I feel its necessary to very briefly discuss the book where Muhammed is supposedly being spoken of.

What’s Wrong With The Zeitgeist Movie?

The Zeitgeist movie has been circulating on the internet since 2007. In the video its director, Peter Joseph, seeks to persuade viewers that the authors of the New Testament essentially plagiarized the concept of the virgin birth, December 25 as Christ’s birth date, the twelve disciples, the miracles, the crucifixion, and the resurrection from astrological sources and pagan mythology.

The focus of this article is to address the allegation that Jesus is a mythological amalgamation of pagan deities invented by various ancient cultures. I will deal primarily with Horus, as he is the first major mythological figure presented as a forerunner of Jesus. I will subsequently deal with the other allegations in brief.

Does Jesus receive worship from Thomas in Johns Gospel?

This short post will seek to demonstrate that the obvious and plain reading of John 20:28 which at first glance appears to record one of Jesus' disciples worshipping Jesus as God, and in return Jesus receives that worship is correct.

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:24-30)

What I generally hear from the Muslims I have spoken to is that when Thomas makes the statement "My Lord and my God!" is that Thomas is saying this out of surprise or shock which would mean Thomas was taking Gods name in vain (Blasphemy). However there are a few obvious problems with such a suggestion, it is highly unlikely that a God fearing Jewish disciple like Thomas would ever use Gods name inappropriately nor would we expect Jesus to respond in a way that ignored such a serious sin.

Did Nazareth Exist During The Life Of Jesus?

Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus? How can we know? What does the evidence say? These are questions to which Christians have been asked to give an answer on a more and more frequent basis by those who profess themselves to be “skeptics” in our world today. It is curious that the first-century historicity of Jesus should be the subject of such contention, since this matter was effectively laid to rest long ago.

There are several reasons which are often given for doubting the first-century historicity of Nazareth, which are largely built around arguments from silence. For one thing, Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings. Critics also contend that the biblical geography is in error, as there is no cliff near the synagogue from which Jesus was allegedly thrown, as recounted in Luke 4:24-30.

A Sunday Quote

"There is only one reason an intelligent person doesn't believe in miracles. He or she believes in materialism." - Chesterton - St. Francis of Assisi

Does Isaiah 53 Speak About Jesus? A Response To Critics

I have always viewed the exquisitely detailed Messianic prophecy of Isaiah 53 as one of the most powerful and compelling reasons for thinking that Christianity is indeed true. Written some 700 years before Christ’s life on earth, this prophecy details the suffering and redemptive purposes of the Messiah. Moreover, the presence of the entire book of Isaiah in the Qumran scrolls gives us confidence that this prophecy pre-dates the first century by at least a couple hundred years. Its presence among the Jewish Scriptures precludes any possibility of Christian tampering anyway, and such a possibility is uniformly rejected among contemporary scholarship.

So what does this passage say? Take a look at the following video:

Some might point to the fact that contemporary Jews reject this passage as being messianic. However, having read the conventional views among them, I think such a view is untenable. Firstly, if the passage — as most contemporary Jews maintain — is really a personification of the nation of Israel, then the passage makes no sense when it says “…for the transgressions of my people [i.e. Israel] he was striken…though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” The term “the servant” is also used of the messiah in other parts of the Bible, such as in Zechariah 3:8 (“I am going to bring my servant, the Branch”)

Moreover, most contemporary Jews are simply not familiar with the chapter – it is curiously avoided in the synagogue readings. We can, however, settle the issue of the passage’s historical Judaic interpretation by going to the ancient sources. Jonathan ben Uziel (early 1st century), for example, in his Targum (an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible), paraphrasing Isaiah 53, wrote: “My servant, the Messiah, will be great, who was bruised for our sins.” Furthermore, the Talmud (in the Midrash Tanchumi) states with reference to Isaiah 52:13 that “He was more exalted than Abraham, more extolled than Moses; higher than the angels.”

Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees in John 5, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.”

The apostle Peter wrote in 1 Peter 1:10-12, ”Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.”

Could this passage really refer to anyone besides Jesus the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world? Is all this just one big happy coincidence? You decide!

Can Muhammad be found in the Gospel of John?

This is a popular claim among many Muslims today that is not only wrong but a little dishonest, especially the way that it is so positively presented in the Islamic literature. I simply cannot see how so many highly educated Muslim scholars think this is a valid claim worth making, especially when its clearly so dubious and unclear.

The claim is that the Greek word used in John 14:16-20 for the 'helper' actually describes Muhammed, this is because it is argued that the gospel has been corrupted or changed and the word should actually be Paraklutos which translates as 'Praised one', which is Muhammed allegedly. So lets examine this claim.

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper [Greek - Parakletos], to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you. “I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

Can God create a stone which she/he/it cannot lift?

A short and sweet one today! A fairly common question, with a fairly simple answer.

While omnipotence is now commonly seen as the ability to do absolutely anything (even apparently meaningless combinations of words), it has not always been understood that way. Traditionally, it would come with several clauses, one being that omnipotence does not include the ability to perform an act which, if performed, would lead to a logical contradiction. Since a stone too heavy for an omnipotent being to lift would, it seems, be contradictory, creating such a stone would not fall under omnipotence. This is consistent with, for example, Aquinas’ understanding: “Therefore, everything that does not imply a contradiction in terms, is numbered amongst those possible things, in respect of which God is called omnipotent: whereas whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.”^[1]

Such a conception of divine omnipotence has been wisely recognised in the modern academic sphere: philosopher Richard Swinburne writes, “God is omnipotent in the sense (roughly) that he can do whatever it is logically possible that he do. The qualification in the last clause is important. There are some apparent states of affairs, the description of which involves a logical contradiction-for example, me existing and not existing at the same time. God cannot bring about such apparent states, not because he is weak, but because the description ‘me existing and not existing at the same time’ does not really describe a state of affairs at all, in the sense of something that it is coherent to suppose could occur.”^[2] Similarly, popular writer C.S. Lewis wrote, “It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.”^[3]

So we can see that, although we have only considered limited examples here, there is an understanding throughout the Christian philosophical tradition of seeing omnipotence as limited in certain respects, viz. that omnipotence does not include logical contradictions. So, since the state of affairs in question is logically inconsistent, we can affirm that God cannot create such a stone, but also that his not being able to create such a stone is in no way inconsistent with his omnipotence.

Footnotes

1. Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. I, Q XXV, art. 3.
2. Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. 94.
3. Lewis, C.S. The Problem of Pain. 18.

Joshua the Highpriest as a Foreshadow of Christ

Previously on this blog, I have highlighted the types and foreshadows of Christ which are found in the Old Testament Scriptures with respect to the Abraham affair and the Passover celebration. In this post, I want to consider yet another remarkable Old Testament foreshadowing of Christ, this time from the book of Zechariah. Let’s take a look at the sixth chapter in this prophetic book:

⁹ The word of the LORD came to me: ¹⁰ “Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. ¹¹ Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. ¹² Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. ¹³ It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’ ¹⁴ The crown will be given to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of the LORD. ¹⁵ Those who are far away will come and help to build the temple of the LORD, and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you. This will happen if you diligently obey the LORD your God.”

The first curious thing to notice of in this passage is the significance of the character names. The name “Joshua” is translated from the Hebrew “Yehoshua” — which is the same name that is translated “Iesous” in the Greek Septuagint. In our English New Testament Bibles, the name “Iesous” is translated “Jesus”. We would also do well to take note of the name of Joshua’s father — Jehozadek. The name literally means “Jehovah Righteousness” (readers may recall the translation of the name of Melchizedek as “King of Righteousness”). Isn’t it a curious set of coincidences that not only is the one who would be explicitly said to be prototypic of the coming Messiah given the name “Jesus”, but his father bears the name “Jehovah Righteousness”?

Oldie But Goodie: Agnostic New Testament Critic Bart Ehrman Schools Atheist Radio Interviewer On The Evidence For Jesus

Lost Scriptures of the New Testament?

In a previous blog, I discussed the textual integrity of the documents which comprise the new testament, and addressed the often-raised claim that the new testament has been substantially edited over the intervening centuries with doctrines being added and removed at the church’s will. As I argued in my previous blog, such ill-informed assertion is pure fantasy.

Another ill-conceived claim which I receive often is the assertion that the twenty-seven books which now constitute the new testament were chosen, more or less, arbitrarily. That is to say, there were dozens of other claimant documents floating around in the early centuries and the church cherry-picked those which best suited their own interests and purposes. While it is certainly true that the canonical documents were by no means the only documents circulating in the early life of the church, the view that the books were chosen arbitrarily or ‘cherry picked’ is, again, simply fanciful.

Did Jesus Even Exist?-The Problematic Argument from Silence

Many of Christianity’s online critics opine the notion that Jesus never even existed. Part of their argumentation involves an argument from silence. In brief, this argument states that Jesus did not exist, because no contemporary writer ever mentions Jesus. Proponents of this view emphasize that many contemporary authors would have written about Jesus, if Jesus truly performed miracles and had such a massive following. The reality, however, is that this argument is a logical fallacy. Although an argument from silence can be logically valid in some cases, it is not legitimate when applied to the question of Jesus’s existence.

I contend that it is reasonable to concur with the vast majority of scholars that Jesus existed during the first century C.E. By “Jesus” I mean a Jewish man who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’s authority during the reign of Tiberius Caesar. This Jesus was also a reputed miracle worker. For the purposes of this blog entry, I will not assume that the New Testament gospels are factually accurate in every single detail that they describe. Instead, I will approach these texts the way the majority of scholars approach them: They are ancient documents and historians must apply careful methodological principles when mining through the gospels’ material. I will expound upon those methods below.

My discussion will be divided into three main sections: First, I will provide a crash course on ancient history and the basic methodological principles historians use to study ancient history. Second, I will discuss details that early Roman sources provide concerning the early Christian movement and I will use them to reconstruct a picture of the apostle Paul’s historical position in the first century C.E. Third, I shall conduct a brief survey of the data Paul provides concerning Jesus. Fourth, I will discuss some additional Jewish material that corroborates what the New Testament sources teach concerning Jesus.

Has The New Testament Been Substantially Edited Since It Was First Penned?

This is one of the most frequently-asked questions I encounter when attempting to explain to people the massive evidence which stands in support and corroboration of the Christian worldview. I probably actually get this question more frequently from the Muslim/Islamic community than I do from atheists, agnostics and other non-believers. The reason for this is not hard to see. The Qur’an not only claims that the gospels and the torah are revealed Scripture, but claims that the Qur’an and the Bible are consistent with one another (e.g. Surah 2:75; Surah 5:49; Surah 32:23; Surah 17:55). But any cursory reading of these books quickly reveals that this is not the case. And it is not merely on minor details that the Qur’an and Bible differ, but on close-to-all of their assertions. For example, the Qur’an (Surah 4:157) explicitly denies that Jesus was even crucified, though this is the core doctrine of the Christian faith. The Qur’an also explicitly denies the Triune character of God (Surah 4:171), though there is no evidence that Muhammad understood what this doctrine was, and it is substantially misrepresented in the pages of the Qur’an (e.g. Surah 2:116, 5:72-76, 5:119, 6:101, 19:35). The Qur’an also teaches that Muhammad is predicted in the Christian and Jewish Scriptures (Surah 61:6), though Muhammad is no where to be found in any of the Christian Scriptures.

Modern Muslims attempt to evade this dilemma by arguing that the Christian Scriptures were consistent with the Qur’an, in their original form, but that they have been substantially edited and re-written in the centuries thereafter. But this argument fails for at least two reasons. First, the Qur’an refers the Christians and the Jews back to their own Scriptures for confirmation of the message revealed by Islam. There is absolutely no suggestion in the Qur’an or Hadith literature, at least to my knowledge, that the Bible was regarded as having been edited in such a radical fashion. Certainly this process of editing cannot have taken place after the Qur’an was written (we have entire copies of the New Testament which predate the Qur’an by hundreds of years, such as the Codex Sinaiticus). But what about before?

When Were The Gospels Written?

When were the gospel biographical accounts of Jesus written? One popular claim by skeptics is that the gospels were written so long after the events which they narrate that their historical and biographical value is suspect. While virtually all scholars maintain that all of the gospels were written in the first century, within liberal scholarship it is conventionally thought that all four gospels were written post-70AD. It is my own view, however, that this proposition is largely arbitrary, and based largely on a false presumption that a prediction, on the part of Jesus regarding the destruction of the temple in AD70, must have been composed after-the-fact. If, however, one takes seriously the proposition that prophecy by a divine figure is possible, then the justification for the post-70AD dating largely disappears.

I am going to propose something radical — namely, that all of the synoptic gospels (that is, Matthew, Mark and Luke) pre-date AD60 and perhaps even AD50, thus being removed from the passion events (33AD) by possibly less than 20 years, with the underlying source material behind the gospels dating back even further still. Moreover, I am going to argue that we possess at least two sources from the 30s AD, being removed from the passion events by only two or three years!

Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth

The question of the meaning and proper interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is one of the most heated subjects in Christendom today. Few other topics have evoked such polarised opinion and division. The diversity of views on Genesis, even among the most learned of exegetes and scholars, is staggering. While one extreme insists that the days of Genesis must strictly be interpreted as seven consecutive 24-hour periods (thus rendering the earth very young indeed — in the order of thousands, and not millions or billions, of years old), at the other extreme lies the notion that the early chapters of Genesis are devoid of any historical content at all. On the latter view, Genesis 1 comprises a mythological allegory; Adam and Eve are reduced to mere literary devices; and the historicity of Noah’s Flood is typically abandoned altogether. There is a plethora of competing views which reside in the middle of those polar extremes: Examples include the Day-Age Theory; the Gap Theory; and various forms of progressive creationism. In this article, I attempt to show that, while it is possible to interpret the book of Genesis in light of a young earth, there is no Biblical mandate for this conclusion: That is to say, Genesis could be interpreted in that manner, but it does not have to be.

I am trained as a scientist (I’m a postgraduate student in evolutionary biology). And, as a scientist, the arguments for an ancient earth seem to be very compelling (needless to say, when it comes to Darwinian evolution, it is a very different story). In this article, however, I simply want to read and understand the text on its own terms, not missing what the text is saying; but, at the same time, not adding to it what simply isn’t there. Having shown that Genesis does not require that one read it as conveying a young earth, I hope that readers will be convinced that we can thus read and understand the science on its own terms as well. It seems to me that there are three major subtopics which an article of this nature must address. These are:

1. The proper interpretation of Genesis One.
2. The question of the fall of man, human sin and its consequences.
3. The scale and scope of the Flood of Noah.

Crucifixion - Could Jesus have survived?

How did the Romans come to use crucifixion as a means of execution?

It is not true that it was the Romans who first came up with the idea of using crucifixion for the means of execution. The Romans were a military powerhouse for over five hundred years before their well documented decline which had lead them all over the known world. A by-product of this was that both previously and during their conquests they picked up and learnt many of the skills, knowledge and technology that were part of the societies and nations they had conquered. Ancient historians generally accept that the Romans learnt it from the Carthaginians made from drawing upon details given in the work of many ancient historians [Livy 22.13.9; 28.37.2; 38.48.13, Diodurus Siculus 25.5.2; 10.2; 26.23.1].

Most ancient historians would actually agree that crucifixion began with the Persians [Herodotus 1.128.2, 3.125.3, 3132.2, 3.159.1, Darius also had three thousand inhabitants of Babylon crucified; 4.43.2,7;6.30.1; 7.194.1]. Although there is no agreed upon consensus.

In fact crucifixion was used as a means of execution by many other people groups including the Indians, Assyrians, Scythians, Greeks and the Taurians. There are even accounts of crucifixions amongst the ancient Celts who would crucify criminals in this way as a sacrifice to their gods [Diodorus Siculus 5.32.6 - And they are monstrously impious in their sacrifices; for they crucify evildoers for their gods].

New Evidences The Gospels Are Based On Eyewitness Testimony: Dr. Peter Williams

Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt: The Passover as a Foreshadow of Christ

Previously, I posted a blog entry on the Abraham affair as a foreshadow — a prototype — of the Gospel. As with most of the arguments for Christianity, the evidence from Old Testament foreshadows and prophecies is most compelling when taken as a cumulative argument. In other words, it becomes most convincing when many different examples are considered together. In this blog entry, I want to consider another well-known example of this category of evidence: The Passover, an event which has been celebrated by Jews for thousands of years.

A Sunday Quote

A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.  C.S Lewis

Is Christianity a Psychological Crutch?

The original post from Bethinking can be found here, Bethinking is one of the best Christian Apologetics resources on the internet, we recommend you make good use of it.

“Christianity is just a psychological crutch!” This is one of a group of common accusations framed against Christianity, which is why it is so important to examine and distinguish if there's any truth in it. Is Christianity just a crutch for the weak, unintelligent and scared, or is it far more than that?
One of the most popular proponents of this hypothesis was Sigmund Freud, the renowned Austrian Psychiatrist who had this to say about religious beliefs:

They are illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest, and most urgent wishes of mankind... As we already know; the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection – for protection through love – which was provided by the father.... Thus the benevolent rule of divine providence allays our fear of the dangers of life. [1]

Freud is accusing Christianity of being the result of a deep-seated desire for the loving protection from a heavenly father figure, a form of wish fulfilment as it were. Is this simplistic assertion true or does the Biblical account of what Jesus did for us on the cross actually provide a way for us to get right with our creator? I will seek to demonstrate just some of the flaws with this sort of reasoning and in some sense make a defence of the historical and life changing claims of Jesus.