Monthly Archives: April 2009

John Ortberg Videos

John Ortberg has a number of interesting videos on apologetic issues.  They are worth taking a look at.  You can find them here.

Losing Christianity

I recently wrote a review article on Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus and Lost Christianities which has just been published in the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry.  You can find the article entitled: “Losing Christianity: A New Testament Scholar’s Fall From Faith” here.

10,000 Hits!

Some time ago I felt the need to start a blog dealing with apologetics.  I was not sure if any one else was interested but I thought I would go ahead with it anyway.  I have enjoyed even if no one else has.  I have been amazed at the response to this blog.  Some time over the weekend, we had our 10,000th hit on this blog.  That is fantastic!  Not everyone agrees with me but that is okay.  I hope this will be a place of learning for everyone, on whatever side of the issue they stand, including me.  Do not hesitate to request a subject to look at.  I am always open to expand my horizons.  Most of all, thank you for supporting this blog and I look forward to learning with each one of you as we go into our next 10,000 hits.

Check Me Out On Twitter

I recently signed up for the social network too called Twitter (www.twitter.com).  Although WordPress offers a Twitter widget, it does not work very well.  There is a link on the side of this blog where you can see my updates.  If you are on Twitter, please add me.  I am always looking to network with more and more people.

Christology of Early Jewish Christianity

My New Testament professor at McMaster Divinity College during my M.Div. days and one of my readers for my M.Th. thesis was a scholar named Richard Longenecker.  He was a great teacher and I can still remember many of his lectures.  I only wish that I had the opportunity to have taken more classes with him.  I recently read one of his older books that I quite liked: The Christology of Early Jewish ChristianityBy early Jewish Christianity, Longenecker means the strands of the New Testament that have the strongest Jewish flavour and represent that cultural and theological tradition.  In this endeavour, Longenecker focuses on Matthew, John (Gospel and the letters), Hebrews, James and the letters of Peter.  That is not to say that he never interacts with Paul, but he always does so from a Jewish perspective.  This book is basically a study of the various titles of Jesus.  He has helpful discussions of Jesus as Christ, Son of Man, Son of God, God and many others.  Longenecker concludes that Jesus primarily saw himself as the Son, Jewish Christians focused on Jesus as Christ and Gentile Christians focused on Jesus as Lord.  This is a book that is well worth reading in order to understand the identity of Jesus and how the early church understood him.

Interview with Stan Porter

My co-author on Unmasking the Pagan Christ, Stan Porter, was recently interviewed on the Drew Marshall radio show regarding the documentary based on the book.  If you are interested, you can listen to the interview here.

Documentary Clip

Here is a clip from the documentary based on our book Unmasking the Pagan Christ which is airing tonight (April 2) on Vision TV. For those of you in the U.S., keep watching the listings on HDNet for its next show time.

Top Ten Problems With the Jesus Myth Theory

As I sit here watching the documentary on Tom Harpur’s Pagan Christ, I find myself reminded of all the problems that I see in the Jesus myth theory.  I will share my top ten problems with this theory.  This is not a detailed analysis but rather my opportunity to vent on the glaring problems with this theory.

1) The rejection of the Gospels as historical sources.  They are seen as faith documents and not modern biographies.  That is true but we do not have any unbiased ancient texts that meet the criteria of modern biography.  If we reject the Gospels, we would also have to reject most of what we know about ancient history.

2) The claim that Paul never mentions the historical Jesus.  This is simply not true.  Paul quotes Jesus, mentions aspects of his life and in 1 Corinthians 15 he challenges his readers to check out the surviving witnesses.

3) The rejection of Josephus as a testimony of Jesus.  Some authors reject Josephus as evidence for Jesus because it is clear that there is Christian tampering.  Most scholars see an original core testimony that has been augmented by Christians not created.  Plus we have what Josephus says about John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus.

4) The claim that gnosticism was an equally original valid of Christianity along side what became orthodox Christianity.  The fact is that there is a clear continuity with our first century Christian documents as found in the New Testament and what became orthodox Christianity.  Gnosticism with its rejection of the Jewish God, Jewish Scriptures, material world, and its focus on gnosis rather than sin were a later (mid to late second century) break away from Christianity.

5) The misuse of pagan myths.  Many claims are made about the pagan myths by these authors but when you look at the myths themselves, these claims are often not accurate.  You are expected to rely on their secondary sources and not to look at the primary sources.

6) Pagan myths are described in Christian language to strengthen their connection to Jesus.  Mithras is said to be born of a virgin even though he was born of a rock.  Horus is said to be born of virgin even though he was conceived in the post-death intercourse of his married parents.

7) No respect for the dates of texts.  Authors use pagan texts to establish connections to Jesus but sometimes (as in the case of Mithras) the texts post-date the New Testament.  How do we know that the pagans did not borrow from the Christians?

8) Use of post-biblical traditions.  Authors demonstrate pagan influence on the three wide men, the ox and ass, December 25 and a number of other traditions.  The problem is that those are not biblical traditions.  These things were added to the tradition later and any pagan influence says nothing about the origins of the Jesus story.

9) Misunderstanding of pagan influence on art.  There are valid examples of pagan influence on Christian art such as Isis holding baby Horus being used as a model for Mary holding baby Jesus.  It make sense that the new movement of Christianity would look beyond itself as it was developing its artistic side.  This says nothing about pagan origins for the story.

10) The patchwork use of pagan myths.  It is difficult to find large chunks of pagan myth that look like the Gospels.  Jesus myth theorists take a word here and a phrase here, from dozens of myths from many cultures and say “Here is the Gospel!”  If you start with enough stories, you can reconstruct almost any historical figure, ancient or minor. 

These are just a few of the problems that I have with the Jesus myth theory.  Unfortunately, it is not likely to go away any time soon.