Critical Reasoning

I recently listened to the critical reasoning podcast by K.D. Borcoman.  It is an important skill and worth listening to.

Muslims Against Crusades

Someone sent me a link to the web-site for Muslims Against Crusades and asked me how Christians should respond.  This group has planned to do a major protest against the upcoming royal wedding but has cancelled because of their belief that that there will be a terrorist attack and they do not want to risk the loss of any Muslim lives.  How do we as Christians respond?  First of all, do not assume that this represents the feelings of all or even most Muslims.  Secondly, ask questions when they start making sweeping statements about western persecution of Muslims.  The west is not completely innocent, but the claims of this group are over the top.  Finally, pray for them and pray for the people of Britain who have to deal with this group.

How to Do Apologetics

I have been having some interesting conversations with some fellow apologists connected with the Christian Apologetics Alliance.  A question was asked about where we need work in apologetics.  My burden is that we get back to 1 Peter 3:15, speaking to people with gentleness and respect.  Christians have to choose what role they see for apologetics.  We can be sick of critics attacking us and choose to hit back or we can have a desire to deal with questions to help real people make room for faith.  Someone in our conversation reminded me of this verse that I thought I needed to share here:

“Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” (Colossians 4:5–6 ESV)

Our speech is not to be biting, devastating or attacking but rather to be gracious.  It would be worth asking for each person interested in apologetics if the thing that we have just said is indeed gracious.

Why I Believe in the Resurrection

Since we have just come out of Easter, I thought I would share why I believe in the resurrection of Jesus.  These are not “proofs.”  If you have already decided you do not believe in the resurrection, these reasons are not likely to change your mind.  But this is why I believe.

1. There is a very early testimony in the church of the resurrection.  Even critics acknowledge that the first part of 1 Corinthians 15 is very early and is not a later addition.

2. There were numerous witnesses to the resurrection.  I once heard Gerd Ludemann give a detailed reason why Peter, wracked by guilt from his denial of Jesus, could psychologically believe that Jesus had reason.  Fair enough.  Except Peter was not the only witness of the risen Jesus, nor was he the first.  Paul tells us that there were more than five hundred witnesses.

3. The witness of James and Paul.  Why would these skeptics change their mind if they had not seen the risen Jesus?  Think of Paul.  He was burning his bridges with the Jewish community with his conversion without any assurance that new bridges could be built with the Christian community.  Something must have happened to make him turn to Christ.

4. The resurrection of Jesus was without religious expectation.  The Jews believed in a resurrection but it was a general resurrection where all of God’s people would be raised, not just one man.  The Greeks and Romans had traditions of apotheosis that is somewhat similar to resurrection.  However, in these cases the person’s body disappeared or was discarded and the person was immediately placed among the gods.  Jesus, on the other hand, spent some time appearing to his disciples before making his way to the right hand of God.

5. The body of Jesus was never produced to demonstrate that Jesus did not rise from the dead.  Opponents could have easily nipped Christianity in the bud by producing the body.  They did not because they could not.

These are some of the reasons that I believe in the resurrection.  This is the cornerstone of Christianity.  People may discount Noah or Jonah, but if the resurrection of Jesus indeed took place, there is a need for serious soul searching.

Jesus as the Solar Messiah

Much of my research is in the area of the Jesus myth theory.  Part of this theory is that Jesus was created as another solar messiah or god along the lines of Helios, Apollo and various Egyptian gods.  One of the most often claimed inspirations is that of Sol Invictus.

I have been listening to Mike Duncan’s History of Rome podcast and have found that there is indeed a connection, but not the one Jesus mythicists claim.  What seems to be the case is that Sol Invictus and other solar deities were an important links in the transition of worship of the traditional Roman gods to the Christian God in the fourth century Roman Empire.  Here is a link to his podcast on the Roman connection to Christmas.  Another episode of interest is his talk on Constantine’s conversion, which you can find here.

What we find is one of the major problems with Jesus mythicists.  They have no respect for chronology.  They find some solar connection between Jesus and Roman or pagan gods and see the inspiration for the creation of Jesus.  An examination of the context demonstrates that the connection is not in the first century, which would be required for dependence, but in the fourth century.  What we have is Constantine seeing in the relative monotheism of the popular Sol Invictus cult, an opportunity to transition the Roman Empire toward the Christian religion, or at least gather the various monotheists in the Empire to support him.  A far cry from the Jesus myth.

International Journal for the Study of New Religions

Thanks to someone commenting on this blog, I have encountered a new journal that people may be interested in.  It is the International Journal for the Study of New Religions and it is put out by the International Society for the Study of New Religions.  It looks interesting and you might want to check it out.

Destruction of the Alexandrian Library

In my reading, I have encountered claims that the the great library at Alexandria was destroyed by Christians to prevent people from discovering the pagan origins of Christianity.  There is a problem with this.  You cannot just open up a history book and see this as a historical fact.  In fact, we do not know when the library was destroyed.  There are four options:

1. Julius Caesar’s Fire in The Alexandrian War, in 48 BC

2. The attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century AD;

3. The decree of Coptic Pope Theophilus in AD 391;

4. The Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.

The destruction that critics often point to is the third one from 391 AD.  As far as I know this is only known to us from Edward Gibbon.  We can also see that the library had already been destroyed twice by pagans.  Before accepting conspiracy theories of suppression by the church, it is a good idea to do a little research.

Attribution Biases of the New Atheists

If you are doing research into the new atheism, I highly recommend Amaranth Amarasingam’s article “To Err in Their Ways: The Attribution Biases of the New Atheists” in vol. 39 no. 4 (2010) issue of Studies in Religion.  Here is part of the abstract:

“This paper contends that one of the fundamental arguments put forth by the new atheists – that religion poisons everything or that religion is responsible for much of the evil in the world – falls victim to one of the best established theories of interpersonal and intergroup relations in social psychology: the fundamental attribution error.  Insights gleaned from social psychology are especially useful for critiquing the new atheism.  Instead of simply arguing that the new atheists ‘over-generalize,’ social psychological studies on the nature of individual and group attribution provide the tools needed to launch a more substantive critique.”

It was an exceptionally well written article.

On Being An Apologetic Church

Here is the audio from my workshop on apologetics in the church from the Owen Sound Association of Baptist Churches Spring Rally at Hanover Baptist Church.

Proof of the Existence of God

I dare any atheist to argue with this logic!