http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:13:56 GMT vBulletin 5 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/misc/rss.png http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156372-The-Silence-of-God&goto=newpost Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:39:07 GMT Where does the problem lie?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Does He have to say something? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Yesterday, I wrote some opening thoughts on God's silence. I wish to continue that today by looking at the problem from a different perspective. Our complaints about God with Him being silent usually go like this.

If God really cared, He would not be silent now.
God is silent now.
So God doesn't really care.

I highly question the first premise. Yesterday, I noted that I think the Bible is lacking in the number of times it has direct interaction between God and man. Usually, this interaction was also done through intermediaries, such as prophets, or even angelic messengers. Of course, this means that God was communicating with some people, but it also means that there were a huge majority that did not get direct communication.

In fact, a number of times, people in the greatest suffering did not get it. The Psalms are replete with this. The Psalmists are usually quite brutely honest about the way they think that God is treating them. I really have no problem with this! If you think God is not being fair with you, if you think He is not being faithful with you, etc., well I think you're wrong, but I understand why you're thinking that and one of the best things I think you can do is to go to Him with your concern and express it honestly. There's no sense in hiding it. He knows all about it after all! The person who truly trusts God is the one that can present all of them to Him, even when it isn't the best.

There are other times. Jesus on the cross in fact asked God why He had been forsaken. John the Baptist in prison was left there and had to go send word to Jesus in order to get a message that would bring him hope. Christ Himself promised us suffering.

What if we started then at the beginning and thought "Maybe the paradigm we have is wrong and this is not normative for the Christian life." If God does not owe us personal communication, then He is not being wrong in not giving it to us.

If this becomes a cause for doubt, then this is where I think good apologetics does come in. Now this is not a post meant to argue with the atheist or make the case for Christianity, but it is one to say where the case must lie. If we want to know if Christianity is true, we must look to the person of Jesus. Is He who He said He was? Did He rise from the dead?

If that is the case, then Christianity is true. We must deal with that. If we want to be rational people, we have to go with what is true regardless, even if at particular times we don't like the idea that Christianity is true, and honestly, for all of us there will be times that we don't like the claims of Christianity.

If we turn the paradigm around then, we find that God has not been silent. He came Himself in the person of the Son. How is that being silent? Is God doing something in our lives? He doesn't owe us that He has to do anything, but again, the question is not what is He doing with us, but what are we doing in His life?

Could it be it is not so much that God is silent and hidden, but rather instead the case that we too often are not looking and closing our ears? (No. I don't mean closing our ears to an actual voice, but closing our ears to His truth that has already been revealed in such places as the Scriptures.)

If you think God doesn't owe you anything, then that could seem like a scary thought. Actually, it's a most awesome and liberating thought! It is a thought that once I think you really grasp it, you will see much more of the goodness of God in your life.

Readers know my wife and I are financially strapped right now. So back in February, a friend of ours had a fundraiser selling jewelry with 25% of the sales going to Deeper Waters. We were getting ready to do the podcast and I needed a headset I could use. What was the result of this event? We had two sets of customers come by all night and we raised $75. My reply?

Thanks be to God.

God is in charge. He did not owe me a lot to come in. He was not obligated to give me so much. As it is, we got enough for me to get a headset and it has been a blessing to us ever since then. It has allowed me to do the podcast. Would I have liked more? Yes. Yet God was not obligated to give me anything. That means that every penny I got that night from Him was a gift. If I had gone in there saying "God owes me this much" and not got that much, I would have had indignation towards God for not giving what He never promised and did not owe me.

It is from this kind of perspective that we should start to look at our lives differently. Look at every good thing that you have around you. You are not owed it. It is a gift. It is grace. Your job is not perfect? You have one. The income is a gift. Your spouse has characteristics you don't like? My wife can say the same about me definitely, and yet we are gifts to one another. (Readers of this blog after all know that I have a constant penchant for giving thanks for Allie.) Your house isn't the best? You have a roof over your head and a bed you can sleep in.

Every good and gracious gift comes from God above....

With this kind of attitude, come to God then. Give thanks. Learn to study the Scriptures and find out what He has said in them. Our tendency when we think we are hurt by someone is to want to block ourselves away from that someone. That only increases the divide. The best way is to put your foot forward. In our relationships, we usually wait for the other person to make the first move. Let us not do that. Let us do what is right just because it is right. (Since being married, I have often made it a point when I wrong someone to go to them as soon as I can and talk it out with them. Yes. That can also include Allie.)

Perhaps when we return to God, we will find how much He is active in our lives. Does that mean He is "speaking" to us. Not necessarily in the modern sense. It does mean we realize He has spoken and instead of looking for something new, perhaps we should pay attention to what has already been said. After all, if we ignore what He has already said, why should He bother giving us any more?

Could it be again, the problem lies more with us?

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156372-The-Silence-of-God http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156358-Opening-Thoughts-On-The-Silence-Of-God&goto=newpost Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:25:22 GMT Where is He?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows

"Why do I not hear from God?" Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A reader yesterday suggested one cause of emotional doubt is the silence of God. Indeed, I had been planning on getting to that topic, but since it has been brought up, I might as well get to it. However, this is going to take more than one post. Therefore, consider this just a start to the topic and in fact, one I'm planning on writing a whole lot more on elsewhere.

To begin with, the reason this is such a large problem I suspect is because of a misnomer in the church. In our individualistic society, we have made it so that God is all about us rather than the point that we are to be all about God. It is the question of what God is doing in my life. It is not the question of what I am doing in His.

After all, when we look at the Bible, God is active everywhere! God speaks all throughout it! Miracles are taking place abundantly! Conversations between God and His followers are always happening and shouldn't we expect the same today?

This is wrong on both counts.

Let's consider someone like Abraham. Abraham was the friend of God. If anyone was to be having a regular conversation with God, surely it would be the friend of God. And yet at one point in the narrative of Genesis, we find that God is silent for thirteen years.

Thirteen years.

Can you imagine being a good friend with someone, someone you'd base your whole life around, and not speaking to them for thirteen years?

Abraham did.

There's nothing in the text that indicates that this was unusual for Abraham. There's nothing about him crying out that God is being silent. One can imagine how God's regular guidance would have helped Abraham so much. He might have avoided that little situation with Hagar.

The reason the Bible records these times in fact are because they are not the norm. They are unusual. If you're writing a biography of someone like Abraham Lincoln, you will not say "On such and such day at such and such time, Lincoln sneezed." No one cares about that. You will record the highlights of his life such as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, his handling of the Civil War, his freeing of the slaves, and his assassination. (Not a highlight in the positive sense, but certainly an aspect of his life worth noting.)

This is the same with miracles. The Bible records these times when miracles happen because they are the exceptional times, and yet the times where they are abundant is rare. There are three such times. One is the Exodus. The next is the appearance of Elisha and Elijah which starts the age of the prophets. The final is the start of the apostolic age. Each of these centers around the new revelation that is coming. (I do of course hold that there are miracles going on today, and this is far more common in the third world and the cause of a number of churches. See Craig Keener's "Miracles.")

So I'd like to say at the start that God's "abundant activity" and "constant speaking" is not really that. Over a period of around 2,000 years from Abraham to Jesus, there is not much if you averaged it out.

Second, why should we expect God would treat us the same way? This is usually part of our own pride in modern times. We are not Abraham. We are not David. We are not Paul. For most of us, the problem is that we think too much of ourselves. It could often be that God speaking to us would cause us to do so more.

Also, if our faith relies on God constantly giving us experiences, then we will never grow as Christians. We need to return more and more to the foundation of our faith, the resurrected Christ. We spend so much time waiting on God to act for us that we don't often bother to act for Him. I suspect that when people in this position start acting for God more and more, they will find that He is much more of a reality in their lives.

To speak from my perspective, I can think of not one time in my life I have heard God speak. I know people who have and I think those will say it is exceptionally rare. I do not take people seriously who have a "Buddy Jesus" concept where God speaks to them on a regular basis that is practically casual. Too many people justify their own desires by saying "God told me" at the start. Personally, it won't hurt you to have some skepticism over a message given to you that starts with "God told me." Why should it? We are told to test prophecy after all!

Yet despite not hearing God speak, God has become more and more a reality in my life over the years. The more I have learned about Him, the more I have seen the great value He is to have in my life and the more I am aware of how much I don't give Him that value too often. When push comes to shove, it is no surprise that my first thought is to think about what my God means to me. Sometimes it disappoints me that my mind can think about so many other things instead of Him. Take away God from my worldview and everything falls apart. (To which, if you remove God from your worldview and your world doesn't change, you need to ask how much God mattered for you to begin with.)

Now I realize some of you are still saying that there is a problem. What are we to do when God is silent? Why is this happening? Does God not care? I hear those questions, and I will be getting to them, but that is for another day. For now, I have given some opening thoughts just to put my answers in better perspective. I hope it will help you.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156358-Opening-Thoughts-On-The-Silence-Of-God http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156350-So-Great-Sin&goto=newpost Mon, 17 Jun 2013 16:51:15 GMT Does the grace of God go that far?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

"How can I be a Christian when I have so much sin in my life?" Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Some friends of Deeper Waters in my last blog commented on how many Christians question their salvation because of sin in their lives. They're entirely correct. Now we know we all have sin in our lives, which is an important point to keep in mind, but what about the person who struggles repeatedly with a sin and goes to bed at night saying "Tomorrow, I'll do better" and then wakes up saying "Today, I will do better" and yet before too long, what are they doing? They're on the computer watching porn again or opening up the fridge for that snack they shouldn't have, or find themselves yelling at their kids yet again with a crying spouse.

The first part to keep in mind is this is the reality that we all have sin in our lives. We all have struggles that we need to confess to the Father. If you know of no such struggle in your life, then you have a far greater one than you realize.

But we all know of passages about people who will not inherit the Kingdom of God and also about the end of Matthew 7 with Jesus saying "I never knew you." The last one is kind of odd. People who do great works are said to have never been known by Christ, and what's the solution for the person who's doubting his salvation then? Do more works to show I'm a Christian! Doesn't look like that's the problem in Matthew 7.

Again, a Calvinist and Arminian could agree here. The Arminian could say that the people in the passage never made a real commitment to Jesus. The Calvinist could say it was a said faith instead of a real faith and they were never part of the Elect. I have no intention of entering that debate. Eternal Security will bring no comfort to the doubter who doubts they have ever been secure.

The answer to the dilemma overall is grace.

Yes. You must realize the grace of God in your life. I'd start by really looking at your sin. Don't look at what it means for you. Don't think about your salvation if you can help it. Instead, just look at what it means to God. What every sin is ultimately is choosing your way over that of God. No matter how big or small, it's doing just that. If you think your way is better than God's, you are claiming to know better than He. You are claiming to have more knowledge than He. You are wanting the right to rule instead of him. You are guilty of divine treason.

This might not sound like help right now. I think it is. I want you to see how serious the charge is.

Now in light of that, realize this. God over and over in the Bible delights in forgiving. Take Manasseh for instance, a wicked king who sacrificed his own children to false gods, and yet in 2 Chronicles 33, we read about his forgiveness.

Over and over, if people will repent, God will forgive.

As long as you're still seeking to move towards God, realize you're going the right way regardless of how often you stumble. Do you thin you tire God out with your confession? He is the one who said that you are to forgive 70 times 7 times and still more.

Do you really think God would rather judge you than forgive you? If so, then you need to take your view of God under consideration. Go through the Bible and red about the grace of god over and over.

"But how can I be forgiven when I keep falling?"

Your wanting to please God shows that you are one of His. Your fear of being apart from Him shows how much you want to be with Him. It shows a broken and contrite heart, the kind that He will not despise.

You are not required to be perfect. Christ is perfect for you. To think that you have to live without sinning after repentance is a Mormon belief, not a Christian one.

This doesn't mean that you don't try to get past your sin, and for that, I offer some suggestions.

First off, have an accountability partner. I've told a number of my friends in regards to my marriage that if they see me stepping out of line, that they have all right to call me out on it. I have a good friend who's a spiritual mentor for me who I email every night after saying prayers. Even if you're not struggling with salvation doubt, I think everyone should do that.

Second, get to the root of the issue. If you have a struggle with porn, for instance, it can help to put up a block on the computer, but you need to look at the real issue. How is it that you view the opposite sex? How is it that you view sex itself? What do you consider such a good in life that you are repeating this sin to get so regularly?

Third, get professional counseling if need be. There are some problems that could be an addiction and you could need some help getting past that is more professional. In some cases, you might need medication. This is not a lack of faith! This is part of good mental health!

Fourth, do invest yourself in learning some good theology. Your doctrine of God needs to be based on more than your feelings, as does your salvation. The Bible never says anything about what it is like to "feel forgiven." It talks about thankfulness for forgiveness, but not the internal feelings. If forgiveness depended on your feelings, our status of forgiveness would change constantly.

A final advice is to live as if you were saved and just watch what happens. Feelings tend to follow actions. Not the other way around.

Dear Christian. Know you serve a God who abounds in grace, and you are not an exception to the rule.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156350-So-Great-Sin http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156300-Salvation-Doubt&goto=newpost Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:35:34 GMT Is it keeping you up at night?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Did you pray the right prayer? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

One of the worst kinds of emotional doubt a Christian can go through is the doubt over their salvation. Many a Christian has gone through this and are relieved to find that it is a common doubt in fact. (Yes. Even I have gone through this kind of doubt and in fact am glad I did since it ultimately got me into apologetics.)

Gary Habermas has said he's collected statistics from people on how many times they've prayed the prayer. Top place goes to a lady who prayed for her salvation over 5,000 times. Second place went to a police officer who prayed over 3,000 times. As said, this is common and while maybe not that severe for some people, it is still a troubling doubt.

Much of the problem with this doubt is that the person who is doubting doesn't "feel saved." Of course, the Bible never tells us what it's like to feel saved, so it is a wonder how someone could know what it is supposed to feel like. Also, this is based often on the silence of God, yet it is not realized that the Bible regularly has God communicating with people. These people are a select few and the speaking is clear and rare both. The concept we have is a modern concept foreign to the Bible.

Yet this doesn't answer the question. What is a Christian to do who is doubtful that they prayed the prayer right and is worried that if they died in their sleep or in some accident or something, that they'd be in Hell forever?

Here are my suggestions.

First off, keep in mind that the fact that you are even concerned about this is a sure sign of your salvation. People who do not care about the things of Christ do not worry about if they are saved or not. If you are worried you are not right with God and did not do things right, consider it evidence about how much God means to you, which is again, evidence of salvation.

Second, if you still have any doubt about certain behaviors, just take care of them. For instance, in the Restoration churches, it is held that baptism is essential for salvation. I do not agree. What do I agree with? Baptism is a command of Christ, so go ahead and do it anyway! (By the way, for all interested, I am hydrophobic with a steel rod on my spine. Getting baptized was quite frightening for me, but I did it anyway)

If you are concerned that you did not pray right, then just pray. Aren't you supposed to be praying regularly anyway? If you are concerned about a sin in your life, then work on giving it up! Aren't you supposed to be doing that anyway?

Third, realize that God cares more about salvation than you do. He's the one who initiated the whole thing, and that's something Calvinists and Arminians both can agree on. We do love because He first loved us and apart from His act through the work of the cross and the empty tomb, no one would be saved. God is the initiator.

If God is doing the work to make sure salvation is available, then realize it matters to Him. God is not looking for reasons to send people to Hell. He's looking for reasons to get them into His manifest presence. That includes you. God is not one who gets sheer delight out of the thought of condemning someone but wishes to bring them to salvation.

Fourth, look at what you believe. Ask yourself these questions. Do you believe Jesus is fully deity? Do you believe He died for your sins? Do you believe He rose from the dead? Do you believe that He is Lord? Sounds good to me. Now if you have doubts over questions such as the resurrection and the deity of Christ, this is the time for apologetics. This is the time to go to your library and get the books and do the reading to answer those questions.

Fifth, there are many debates that ask if we can lose salvation or not. That debate is useless to this question. After all, if you think like an Arminian you can say "I lost it." If you think like a Calvinist you can say "Never had it and not one of the elect." Instead, take a stance that both sides will say is essential for salvation. Just ask yourself if you're trusting in Christ. As long as you keep trusting in Christ in fact, the whole debate really won't matter in the long run.

Sixth, go and listen to what others are telling you in this case. Chances are, you would not ever tell someone who is in doubt over their salvation like this that they do not have it. In fact, it's not just being nice. You wouldn't say it because you don't believe it. (Which it usually is good to try to think through doubt as if you were a third party listening in.)

Doubt like this is usually just a way to shut you down and keep you from living with the joy of salvation. For those skeptical, this is not just for you, but what I had to do with my own doubts. You might think I might not be taking your salvation as seriously, but I am definitely taking mine seriously, and I would not give you advice I do not think would work in my case. (This is said simply for the person who is ultra-skeptical. My real reason in writing this is of course great concern for those who do suffer with this, having been there before.)

Next time, we'll look at more emotional concerns.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156300-Salvation-Doubt http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156286-What-if&goto=newpost Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:21:24 GMT But....but....

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What is a sign of emotional doubt? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Imagine you're a Christian with some background in apologetics. Now you have someone who is coming to you who's also a Christian and is doubting and you present a case to them and make it clear throughout that this is where the overwhelming evidence leads. The person you're trying to help agrees that all that evidence is extremely strong, but ah, here comes the objection.

"But what if?"

This person isn't disputing all the evidence you've brought forward. They have no argument against it. There's just this little thing in the back of their mind that says "Yeah, but what if all of that is wrong?" When this happens, you can be sure that you are dealing with an emotional doubter.

It has been said that emotional doubt is the most common kind of doubt. Based on my experience, I agree with it. Men and women can both be emotional doubters. For women, they have the advantage that they usually know that. Men are more stubborn and wanting to say "It's not my emotions. It's not my emotions." I have encountered a number of men telling me their doubts are intellectual and I'm listening to them and hearing all the warning signs with my mind telling me "Emotional doubter. Emotional doubter. Emotional doubter."

For instance, my former roommate and I once regularly met with someone who was agnostic and tried to answer his questions, to which I think we did successfully. At one point, we were out having lunch with him and his Christian wife when he said "I know in the end you two are just going to fall back on your feelings and experiences to confirm Christianity," to which both of us immediately went "NO!" It is a kind of approach we both couldn't stand and still can't. He was quite surprised at that not knowing how to handle it.

So what is to be done with this kind of doubt?

First off, it can happen to anyone. Being an atheist does not make you less emotional. Being a Christian does not make you more emotional. There are emotional atheists and unemotional Christians. There are Christians who believe for emotional reasons. There are atheists who disbelieve for emotional reasons. To be clear, I consider it wrong to believe or disbelieve for those reasons.

Second, when one is in a state of high emotion, it's not the time to be making decisions that are major, including choosing to follow a religion or abandon it. Around our house, when one of us is in a state where we know the emotions are taking the lead, it's important to let the other person be the surrogate frontal lobe as it were. Let the person whose mind is not clouded at the time speak and help the other. Of course, this is still resisted to a degree, but it is an important step. If you can't trust your thinking at one time due to emotion, then talk to people you do trust. At times, this could be a wise professional counselor as well.

Third, realize that this does not mean emotions are bad things. We should be thankful we have them. I do have a friend who is actually a sociopath. Not in the sense that he's a vicious murderer or anything, but in the sense that he really feels no emotion. When he has lost loved ones in the past, he has not felt anything about the event. I am quite thankful I am not like that. I have a friend who is in ministry who has said that the relationship I have with my wife is unusual on the spectrum and says I should thank God every day that I am a lover. Sometimes I forget, but I try to give thanks every day. It's a good thing!

Fourth, remember the parable in Luke 14 of building a tower and the king going to war. The choice for Christ is best not to be made as a sudden decision, although growing up in the church many of us did that. One should really consider what one is getting into (Or in the case of apostasy getting out of) before one decides.

Fifth, trying reason might not work. That is, arguing against yourself. It can often be best to realize this is a season and it will pass. Let your emotions die down. You don't stay on edge forever. Until you're not on edge, you can always rely on others.

Next time, we'll look at more about emotional doubt and dealing with it.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156286-What-if http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156273-Book-Plunge-Who-Was-Jesus&goto=newpost Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:19:30 GMT Find out how Spong is wrong.

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Is Wright right and Spong wrong? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I am an avid fan of N.T. Wright and try to read absolutely anything that he writes. My latest read of his came from reading "Fabricating Jesus" where Evans dispenses with people like Barbara Thiering yet says N.T. Wright has written a response to her in "Who Was Jesus?"

That's enough to get me looking for that on my next library visit!

Thiering is not Wright's only target. Wright has other chapters on A.N. Wilson and John Shelby Spong.

It's hard to read this book without thinking that seeing N.T. Wright go after these guys is like watching a tank be used to squish an ant.

Wright's book starts off with a brief summary of Jesus studies to this point, largely by looking at what Schweitzer did. He goes on from there to say where the studies have led us and then brings out Thiering, Wilson, and Spong as examples of how not to do these kinds of studies, all the while still commending some good points that can be found in them.

Reading Thiering, it's a wonder how such a work as hers got published. Thiering's idea is that practically everything in the gospels is code and the way to understand the code is by looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls. As Wright points out, Thiering is quick to dispense with her idea of a code whenever it is convenient for her to do so. Based on her reading, Thiering has dates on when Jesus escaped death, married Mary Magdalene, later left her and married Lydia of Philippi, (Seriously. I'm not kidding), and eventually died.

Yes. Wright takes the time to dispense with such a bizarre theory as this. One cannot help but imagine the reaction these three authors might have had knowing who was critiquing their work.

A.N. Wilson comes from another angle. For Wilson, Jesus was a Galilean holy man, but Paul came along and messed everything up! Wilson does have more right than Thiering (Granted, not much of an accomplishment), but there is still too much that is wrong. Wilson does not interact with the latest of scholarship on the issue and gives the impression of being stuck in works from the 1960's. Amazingly, some parts of his writing are quite accurate and had I not known they were from him, I would have thought they were from a conservative Christian.

One of Wilson's great weaknesses is his idea about seeking unbiased sources. As Wright points out, they don't exist. Everyone wrote with a motive. No one is neutral on the Jesus question and it is a mistake to think anyone is. Yet as Wright has said elsewhere, even if the sportscaster has a bias for which team he thinks is the best and wants to win, that doesn't mean you must doubt the score he reports.

Furthermore, if we wanted an unbiased work, it would not be Wilson who makes it clear he has a hammer to use against anything that is religious. As usual, it is the ones who are claiming the most to have no bias who in fact do have the most bias.

Finally, we come to Spong, who has a hang-up over the virgin birth. Wright is just perplexed, as am I, over the idea that Spong has that we today know better. As Wright points out, they might not have known as many details about sex as we do, but they certainly knew what it took to make a baby. That's why Joseph sought to divorce Mary at first. He knew what it took to make a baby, and he knew he hadn't done it.

Spong also has a vendetta against literalism, which I can understand, but yet praises the Reformation and goes against the ECF. Yet it was the ECF who were more pron to going with an allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures and the Reformers who wanted to return more to a literal interpretation.

Spong also includes a comment about what Midrash is, an account that Wright thinks is nonsense, and that scholars of Midrash would disagree with. Like the other writers, Spong can sound impressive on paper and the notes and bibliography of the books Wright comments on can make them seem scholarly, but it is only a veneer. The real heart of the works is anything but.

As with any Wright work, I do recommend this one. Wright gives an excellent example of how to deal with so much misinformation in the popular culture. It is a shame more people will read Thiering, Wilson, and Spong, but never get around to Wright. I am thankful for Wright and thankful indeed that Wright is right and Spong is wrong.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156273-Book-Plunge-Who-Was-Jesus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156257-Book-Plunge-Atheist-Delusions&goto=newpost Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:46:22 GMT Could it be that believers are not the ones deluded?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What's my review of David Bentley Hart's "Atheist Delusions?" Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Psalm 11:3 "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

Indeed. What can the righteous do? When picking up Hart's book, one might expect a lengthy reply to various new atheist arguments and criticisms of their approach. One will certainly find that, but not where one would expect. It will be in the first section of the book and the last section. The majority of the book does not even mention them at all. Do not come here if you are expecting a critique of Dawkins's bogus 747 argument for instance.

Yet Hart does not hide his opinion of modern writing. The first chapter, "The Gospel of Unbelief", has a number of great statements. The Da Vinci Code on page 4 is described as the most lucrative novel ever written by a borderline illiterate. On the same page, we are told Christopher Hitchens's "talent for intellectual caricature somewhat exceeds his mastery of consecutive logic." There's Richard Dawkins who "despite his embarrassing incapacity for philosophical reasoning--never fails to entrance his eager readers with his rhetorical recklessness." Describing Sam Harris's "The End of Faith" on page 8, Hart says "It is little more than a concatenation of shrill, petulant assertions, a few of which are true, but none of which betrays any great degree of philosophical or historical sophistication. In his remarks on Christian belief, Harris displays an abysmal ignorance of almost every topic he addresses."

Yes. Hart does not hold back and he gives more of the same in the end, but there is no need for Hart to waste time on those of the new atheists who have just as much faith if nor more than the fundamentalist preachers and believers that they are so quick to condemn. There is a sharp dichotomy with them. No goodness can be attributed to religion and no evil can be attributed to non-religion. If something works religiously, it has a "scientific basis." If something goes wrong with a system of non-belief, that is because the part that went wrong has a "religious basis."

What Hart wants to deal with is the foundations. These beliefs are being removed by the new atheists from their position of faith. It is a system of materialism that cannot allow anything contrary to its unproven presuppositions. If something seems outside of the material universe, it's either just wrong or we'll find an explanation for it someday.

It is a position that upholds the value of science but then takes that and turns it into a deity. Science is the new priesthood with its own standards of canonicity (No religious belief allowed) and its own statement of faith (No gods allowed) and built on a number of creedal statements (Religion poisons everything. Faith is believing something without evidence) and bad evangelistic slogans. (I just believe in one less god than you do.)

Keep in mind the very term "There is no God", while it could be true for the sake of argument, cannot be determined by science, any more than the claim "Love is the highest virtue" cannot be proven by science. This is not because science is wrong. It is because science is the wrong tool. It is no more an insult to science to say this than it is an insult to hammers to say they are not recommended for treating a toothache.

While it might be said that a Christian will hide from a scientific discovery, and no doubt many do, it is just as true that the modern atheist tends to hide from anything that indicates any truth of a religious claim. Such can be found in how many even make it a mantra that Jesus never even existed. What is accepted as thoroughly proven amongst NT scholars and ancient historians and is practically a universal consensus, is disregarded, while the new atheists mock the Christians who do not accept the scientific consensus on evolution, held even by some Christians. Once again, which conclusion should be accepted depends on the presupposition. All of science is good and all of religion is wrong and biased.

Hart goes to great lengths to show that the problem is not really with science or religion. Men have a great proclivity to do evil and will accept any reason to do so. That reason can be religious or scientific. We must simply ask which one has had a greater power to curtail that evil within human beings. His argument is that Christianity has had that power.

To show this, he deals largely with myths of history and shows how Christianity changed the world through the building up of moral character based on the example of Christ. Hart contends that today, we accept many moral truths, but would we have accepted them if Christianity never came into the world? Probably not, except for perhaps Jewish people. Just look at the Greco-Roman world. Men and women weren't equal. Some were by nature slaves. Unwanted children were to be left in the wild to die at the hands of wild animals. People watched other real human beings fight and die in the Coliseum for entertainment purposes. Did Christianity erase all of this immediately? No. But Christianity did set the seeds in place that eventually did so.

What happens then when these ideas that are rooted in Christian beliefs lose their Christian foundations? Will the belief itself live on? It could be a nice dream to think that it would, but where is the evidence? The 20th century has been the most secular century of all, and at the same time the most bloody century of all. If we are people to go by the evidence, then the evidence is in. At this point, when Christianity is removed, people have a greater propensity to return to their base desires.

Consider for instance the idea of what to do with the least of ours. The Romans and Greeks would leave their children to die in the wild if they weren't wanted. Are we that barbaric? It could be, we're worse. Peter Singer and others argue today that we should have the right to kill our own disabled children up to a certain time. As someone who is an Aspie, as is my wife, I take this claim quite seriously. Christianity, on the other hand, would hold that this one that is said to be useless in the sight of the world and holding us back from genetic success, fully bears the image of God and is worth more than the entire universe. Indeed, one could argue that in their weakness, many disabled people reveal the nature of God, the God who in Christianity took on human weakness in the incarnation, than many of us "healthy" ones do.

Hart does not hold out much hope for our society as he does not see how such a revival can take place. Perhaps it is just for me that hope springs eternal, but I think it is possible. I think we are on the verge of a golden age in apologetics. If the apostles could change the Greco-Roman empire, why not think that we all today can do the same in our own world? The question is not the ability. We have the means to reach the world. The question is not the knowledge. We have the information that we need to do so. The question is the will. Are we willing?

Ultimately then, it comes down to a question of obedience. Christ has given us our marching orders in the Great Commission. There is no plan B. We have been told what to do. The question could then be said to be "How much do we believe in Christ? How much are we truly Christian?"

If we claim Christ is Lord of all and He has the power to change the culture, then let us go out there and do so. If we do not do so, it could be because parts of us don't really believe that the Christ can do so through the proclamation of His message. This would be, as I've argued before, due to a lack of instilling of the importance of having a total Christian worldview to our churches rather than just teaching that we should be good people. Christians are to be good people, but we are to be not just good people. We are to be Christian people.

If I had a criticism of Hart's work, it would be I would like to have seen more claims properly noted. There are many notes, but there are many claims I would have liked to have seen more noted. I also disagree with him that both Arians and Trinitarians could make a case from the Scriptures. They speak with one voice and they say "Trinity."

Despite this, I do overall highly recommend the work to deal with a number of atheist statements of faith. The style is witty and engaging, yet it is certainly not simplistic, and one will learn plenty from reading a volume like this.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156257-Book-Plunge-Atheist-Delusions http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156214-Lighting-Up-Dark-Ages-Science&goto=newpost Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:07:06 GMT Join us to hear James Hannam!

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What's coming up on this Saturday's episode of the Deeper Waters Podcast? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

We had hoped to get Mike Licona to join us, but he is with his mother who is in the final stages of brain cancer. We ask for your prayers for her and the rest of our family in this time.

Instead, it looks like our guest is going to be James Hannam. James Hannam is the author of the book "God's Philosophers", also known as "The Genesis of Science." In this book, Hannam takes a look at the period of time known as the Dark Ages where the church led the world and as a result, science and education languished while people dwelt in superstition, until finally came Galileo along to renew an interest in science.

That's the popular belief, and as is often the case with many such beliefs today, it is entirely false. Hannam goes to great lengths in this book to demonstrate that the Christian church not only encouraged science, but carried it forward so that people like Galileo were just standing on the shoulders of those who came before them.

We will hopefully be talking about people such as Andrew Dickson White who kept going the myth that in this time there was a warfare between science and religion. This could include also discussing how modern disciples of ignorance, such as the new atheists, keep these claims going.

We will find that certainly not everything the medievals believed about science and nature was accurate, but it wasn't because they were blinded by religion. If anything, it was because they did not have the best information available, yet for what means that they did have to obtain knowledge, they made several excellent observations that we still hold today.

We will be looking at the way Scripture did play a role in this. Did it hinder the learning that took place or did it encourage it? Was it a rule that the Scriptures had to be interpreted "literally" or did the church allow for a variety of ways in which a passage could be translated? Were there any real conflicts going on between science and religion?

Were those who were doing science supported by the church or where they doing their work in isolation? If you had a sickness, could it have actually been better for you to go to your local priest rather than to the actual medical doctor? Were cadavers allowed to be used for the study of the body?

And of course, some time will have to be spent on Galileo. Was he really the victim of persecution from the church trying to put a stop to his science, or was there something more going on?

In the end, I suspect you will be surprised to find that the so-called dark ages were not really dark at all. If anything is actually in the dark today, it is the idea that is spread perpetually by those who wish to paint the time period as a time of great ignorance.

Please join in from 3-5 EST this Saturday to listen to the podcast here

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156214-Lighting-Up-Dark-Ages-Science http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156184-Book-Plunge-Fabricating-Jesus&goto=newpost Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:11:03 GMT Have some modern scholars missed it big time?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Is Craig Evans's book worth reading? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

In Fabricating Jesus, Craig Evans takes a look at how modern scholarship mislead the populace and miss the real Jesus. Evans's work is witty and engaging and the bluntness with which he speaks I find extremely appealing. How can you not love a work that has a chapter all about hokum history with after reviewing a claim saying something like "Let me get this straight."

Yet in that, there is also a pastoral heart. Evans, for instance, writes about Ehrman's deconversion experience and how it started with a paper he wrote on Mark 2. (For details, most any book of Ehrman's seems to have it in there.) Evans says he has empathy for Ehrman, but is just puzzled by what happened. I wanted to cheer when Evans said what I've been saying for awhile, that Ehrman is still a fundamentalist.

Evans looks into the writings of a number of scholars and points out how they held a faith in childhood that never seemed to grow up. What you learn in Sunday School is often quite basic and should be subject to change, but these scholars had equated what they learned with what Christianity was entirely. In the work, he discusses other scholars who left the Christian faith such as Robert Funk, James Robinson, and Robert Price.

Evans also says he can't believe he's having to write against some of the arguments that he is dealing with. It would be more understandable if some of them were being shared by just popular writers or your internet atheists, but a few are actually held by people who are scholars!

For instance, Evans wants to know how the Jesus of the Jesus Seminar would have got himself crucified. What great threat was he? Why should he consider Secret Mark or the Egerton Gospel or the Cross Gospel or the Gospel of Thomas reliable sources the way Crossan does? This is especially so with the first one since a conclusive case has been made that it's a forgery. Why should he also think that Jesus was a cynic sage wandering around Israel?

Evans also covers other topics such as other gospels that supposedly didn't make the cut and the misuse of Josephus by modern scholars. Furthermore, he deals with the idea that there were lost Christianities by explaining many writers *cough* Bart Ehrman *cough* take a second century idea and transplant it into the first century. The first century church had its divisions, yes, but nothing like what we see in Lost Christianities.

An amusing section is that on hokum history. In this one, he deals with claims such as those of Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, claims that were highly influential on a book like The Da Vinci Code. Claims that no one in their right mind should believe, but claims several people do believe and this largely because of the Da Vinci Code popularizing them.

Included in that section is James Tabor. While Tabor is a scholar, his arguments in the Jesus Dynasty contain some quite unscholarly claims, such as the reliance on a 16th century mystic. Of course, Tabor rules out at the start any idea that maybe Jesus actually was virgin born and was resurrected.

The final chapter, aside from appendices, is a statement on who the real Jesus is, which is a powerful and moving piece. Evans concludes that the gospel does stand up to scrutiny and he's convinced that more real scholarship will further show there is no division between the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history. Perhaps it could be the strange case that the gospels really did get it right and modern scholars with modern presuppositions have often got it wrong?

Fabricating Jesus is another book that I cannot recommend enough. Anyone interested in learning about how modern scholars go wrong on the historical Jesus owes it to themselves to pick up a copy of this work.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156184-Book-Plunge-Fabricating-Jesus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156124-Book-Plunge-Reinventing-Jesus&goto=newpost Mon, 03 Jun 2013 18:41:09 GMT Is this book worth reading?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What do I think of this book by J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel Wallace? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I have read a number of books on the Historical Jesus that defend my own view, a conservative Christian view, but most of them are rather passe in many ways. You can hear the same old, same old, as if the writers just want to give you the mere basics of the case so you can make it. Now for some people, basics are good and necessary, but so often I really would like to read something more substantial from the conservative side and something that will give them a lot of firepower.

I picked up Reinventing Jesus not knowing what to expect, but found myself impressed thoroughly by this work. The authors lay out a powerful case and even better, they deal with the popular critics that will be mentioned in water cooler conversation. These are the ones largely quoted on the internet. Scholarship doesn't really take their claims seriously, but such a situation has never stopped ignorant people on the internet from touting off the claims with the same degree of certainty as they condemn in a fundamentalist revival preacher.

So do you want to see Dan Brown dealt with? Got it covered! How about Acharya S.? She's answered? Earl Doherty? Taken to task. Frank Zindler? Robert Price? Freke and Gandy? Aside from Price, who is on the fringe of scholarship, these are names not taken seriously, but that does not mean they should be ignored. It's extremely important to show the massive ignorance that is often pontificated on the internet.

The authors start off with the case for oral tradition, which is an excellent start since the average lay reader knows little about this and can often think of modern concepts of memory which don't really apply to an ancient society. In doing so, they show that the teachings of Christ would have lasted at least to the time of writing.

Well how about that time? Maybe the writings are wrong? That's when we look at textual criticism and this section is an excellent tour de force. The authors have up-to-date statistics on when the NT manuscripts were written and how they were copied and deal very well with the popular criticisms that work against the idea as well as scholarly concerns. Let it never be stated they only deal with popular claims. They deal with scholarly ones as well.

What about the books that were copied? How do we know the canon was right? Again, this is an excellent topic that is not discussed often in literature. The writers put forward a presentation that demonstrates the integrity of the early church and show that they did not just blindly attribute authorship to a writer. They had the highest of standards. Much of this information I found immediately useful.

Did those books reflect the truth about Jesus? Extremely beneficial here is a look at what went on in the Council of Nicea to show that Nicea did not change everything. Also, there is abundant information to show that there was an early high Christology showing Jesus was perceived as included in the divine identity and that He Himself made such claims.

Supposing that's the case, did the Christians not just rip off other pagan myths like Osiris and Mithra? I was extremely pleased to see a section on this! This is one of the most preposterous claims that goes around the net by people who have never read an original source on the topic. The writers have done us a service by giving a superb presentation to show that there has been no copying, unless you count copying by others of Christian claims and language.

In conclusion, I recommend this fine work without reservation. If I was to teach a class on NT apologetics, this book would no doubt be required reading.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156124-Book-Plunge-Reinventing-Jesus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156066-Deeper-Waters-Podcast-6-1-2013&goto=newpost Sat, 01 Jun 2013 00:33:52 GMT You want to listen tomorrow. Why? You want to hear Craig Blomberg!

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What's the topic for the Deeper Waters Podcast this Saturday? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

So you're sitting there wondering what you're going to do for your Saturday afternoon. How about the Deeper Waters podcast? Well that could depend on who the guest is this week. If you tune in, you're going to hear an excellent guest. The incredibly scholarly Craig Blomberg will be our guest to talk about the historical reliability of the gospels.

That also happens to be the title of the book that he has under discussion. Some of you might know Blomberg from Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ." Others of you might know Blomberg as well from the fact that Geisler went after even him for defending Michael Licona. What you should know about Blomberg is that he used the methods of scholarship and wound up defending orthodox Christianity.

We'll be talking about what it means to say the gospels are historically reliable. Do we mean that they are inerrant? If they are not, does that cost us anything? We'll be talking about the question of miracles. Since the gospels involve miracles, does that make them automatically suspect? (Spoiler alert for some of you. You can expect more on this when I interview Craig Keener on August 10th.)

What are the approaches of scholarship that are being used? We will talk about all manner of criticism such as form criticism and redaction criticism. We will talk about the concept of the gospels being read as midrash. Should Christians avoid this kind of study and approach altogether? Should we go in wholesale? Or does the ideal method lie in the middle somewhere?

What about the authorship of the gospels? Can we know that Matthew was written by Matthew and that Luke was written by Luke? What about contrary theories to this? Is there a historical method whereby we can determine who it is that wrote a particular book?

Also, we will be talking about supposed contradictions in the gospels. If you go to any atheist website, you are quite likely to see a list of Bible contradictions. Blomberg has seen them as well and obviously, we cannot discuss all of them, but we will try to discuss some of them. Of course, if you have one that you really want to have discussed, then you are free to call in at 714-242-5180.

On the agenda as well is to discuss extrabiblical resources in looking at the biblical record. Is there anything in history that contradicts the Biblical account? Something interesting in light of this is that Blomberg does not really think archaeology can provide the help most people think it can with the gospels. We'll also be talking about why he thinks that.

Much of this is just possibility as we never know where one question might take us, but these are all possible topics of consideration. I invite you to be listening tomorrow from 3-5 EST to hear this informative podcast and feel free to join in the discussion at the number mentioned above.

A link to it can be found here.

Hope you're listening!

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156066-Deeper-Waters-Podcast-6-1-2013 http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156045-Why-Do-You-Doubt&goto=newpost Thu, 30 May 2013 16:03:04 GMT What are the areas of doubt?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

What makes people doubt Christianity? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

A friend recently sent me an article by Peter Enns where Enns talks about the question of doubt and wants to know why Christians doubt. Doubt is a topic I've experienced a lot of familiarity with and take seriously. Most people know about my relationship with Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, both of whom have been very forward about their experiences in dealing with doubt. Both of them are also excellent scholars in their field.

This post is not going to deal with how to deal with doubt at this point. I'd just like to talk about what the problem is. This will also go to both sides of the spectrum. It can be why non-Christians doubt that Christianity is true, but it can also be about why believing Christians doubt that Christianity is true. This will be specified more in future posts.

Doubt is very common amongst Christians and in fact amongst anyone. If someone has a worldview and they never experience any doubt of their worldview or never have before, then that person is simply not taking their worldview seriously. Doubt is not a sign of a problem necessarily, but in fact can be a stepping stone to a greater understanding of one's own worldview and if one has a wrong worldview, motivation to change it.

Generally, doubt falls into three categories. This does not just apply to Christianity. People can doubt any worldview for these three reasons.

The first is intellectual doubt. Intellectual doubt is usually seen as the most common, but in reality, it isn't. Intellectual doubt can often be a smokescreen. A great way to find out of if intellectual doubt is the problem is to answer the question and see what kind of response you get. If you get a response that starts with "But what if?" then you are most likely dealing with emotional doubt.

Intellectual doubt is really the simplest of all to treat. The way to answer intellectual doubt is to just get more information. It means you go to the local library or bookstore and start getting out resources and doing the necessary study so you can learn. If one is never satisfied by such study, one needs to move on and see if there is another reason for doubt.

Emotional doubt is the next on the list. This is the one I'd say is the most common and is rooted not in reason, but in the emotions, although it often takes the guise of reason. Blaise Pascal spoke of taking the greatest champion of reason and suspending him on a platform of sufficient size over a huge chasm. Watch what happens as his imagination overtakes his reason.

This is the cause of phobias. For instance, if someone is afraid of flying, it will not matter if you quote to them all the statistics in the world on it being safer to fly than it is to drive. They will not be able to see it because of their emotions. This includes myself as well until I finally took my first flight and now I simply adore flying. One aspect I enjoy of going on a long trip sometimes is that I get to fly again.

Emotional doubt happens when what one feels overpowers what they think. For instance, one could say they don't think atheism is true because life would be meaningless without God. I by and large agree with that, but that is not a reason that atheism is not true. It could be atheism is true and life is meaningless.

This is especially problematic since emotional responses are usually the reason we believe many claims. I think of the old hymn where it says "You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart!" Such a reason will not convince a world any more than the Mormons talking about the burning in the bosom convinces you. If a Muslim tells you he knows in his heart that Muhammad is a prophet, you are not going to be convinced.

Emotional doubt also goes with false expectations. When we expect God to provide certain feelings and that the Christian life should be a certain way, we will naturally have doubt if this does not happen. We can be guilty of wanting something that God never promised. There will be more on this later.

The problem of evil definitely falls into this. Evil in itself can never prove Jesus did not rise from the dead, nor does it disprove theistic arguments. These stand or fall on their own. Evil does give an experiential basis for doubt. It hits so close to home that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. The problem of evil is often addressed intellectually, which is really as an academic subject the way it must be addressed, but when dealing with someone affected by it deeply and presently hurting from it, one absolutely must touch the emotional side. I have often told people who I have taught that if you're ever a pastor at a church and a woman comes to you from your congregation whose son just died in a car accident and she's crying asking why God allowed this to happen, that if you turn into a philosopher and/or apologist at that moment, I will come over and smack you. Yes. She will need that, but at that present moment, she just needs to grieve. She needs a pastor and a counselor first. When the shock has worn off, then you can handle the intellectual difficulty. (Note that it is far better to deal with that intellectual difficulty prior. All Christians need to get an answer for evil in their mind beforehand.)

The final kind of doubt is volitional doubt. I have no doubt some Christians doubt atheism and some atheists doubt Christianity for these reasons, and they are the worst. It is not about a search for truth at all or seeking to not have emotions control reason. It is about not wanting to believe.

For instance, someone could not want to be a Christian because they have a sin in their life, such as rampant extra-marital or pre-marital sex, and they know becoming a Christian means giving that up and they don't want to. Sin is a reason a number of people can refuse to become Christians. Some of you reading might say "That's not me!" I contend only you and God know the answer to that one. If you are doubting Christianity, at least make sure this is not the reason why.

After all, suppose you think God is the most wicked being who ever has been. If Christianity is true, that won't change the fact that He exists and that Christianity is true. It could mean you have a wrong view of Him and that false view of Him is blinding you from seeing Him as He is. There are some who have said they would prefer to go to Hell instead of being in the manifest loving presence of God. The sad reality is God is ready to grant them their wish. Instead, I recommend trying to see why God acts so different from what you expect. There is no doubt some emotional thinking in volitional doubt, but this kind of doubt deals more with the will. An emotional doubter can want to believe. A volitional doubter doesn't want to, and it will require changing the will, a much harder process. Anyone who has overcome an addiction or tried to lose those few extra pounds on a diet should know this. You have to work to change what it is that you really want.

These ultimately are the broad categories of why doubt takes place. Over time, I hope to be able to look at these and give recommendations on dealing with them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156045-Why-Do-You-Doubt http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156023-Rulers-Of-This-Age&goto=newpost Wed, 29 May 2013 17:23:20 GMT What kind of rulers are we talking about here?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Where did the rulers of the age reside? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I've been looking lately at some arguments given to advance the idea that Jesus never existed. An interesting verse given is in 1 Cor. 2:8. The text reads as follows:

"None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Now it is argued that elsewhere where Paul uses the word archon, which is translated as rulers, then it refers to rulers of the air and that refers to spiritual powers. So it is that Jesus did not really confront earthly rulers, but he instead confronted the rulers in the heavenlies and this heavenly story later on took on an earthly meaning.

One place where Paul uses it is in Ephesians 2, but there he clarifies the term by speaking of the ruler of the power of the air. The qualification is so you will know that Paul is not speaking about an earthly ruler but in this case about a spiritual ruler.

Another place the term is used is in Romans 13, but here I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that it refers to any sort of heavenly ruler. The passage is about governing authorities on Earth and how Christians are to respond to them. So what do we do in 1 Cor. 2?

Do we have any reason to think that the reading of earthly rulers would not apply? Upfront, no. The only basis for taking it the other way is because somehow saying rulers of this age makes it a spiritual battle going on.

Now of course, Christians would not deny that spiritual powers were at work in the crucifixion of Jesus, but these were spiritual powers who operated through earthly rulers. The problem with people like Carrier and others is that they have made it an entirely either/or situation. It is EITHER spiritual powers at work meaning this is a myth, OR it is earthly powers at work. If it is spiritual powers, then it is ipso facto by that argument not earthly powers, but why should this be accepted?

In the ancient world, there was not this great dichotomy between so-called natural and supernatural. Instead, the divine was seen to be active in everything and that included earthly affairs. If you asked if spiritual powers had Jesus crucified you could be told "Yes." If you asked if earthly powers had him crucified, you could be told "Yes."

Do we have any evidence that goes for the traditional interpretation?

Yes!

Tacitus in the Annals in 15.44 tells us that Jesus was crucified and this under Pontius Pilate. Lucian tells us that Christians follow a crucified sophist. We could also include Josephus depending on how much of the testimonium is considered valid since it refers to the crucifixion. Definitely we could include the gospels, Acts, and numerous other statements in other epistles and other Pauline epistles.

All of these other statements MUST be wrong for the mythicist theory to hold here. That sounds like awfully weak ground.

It's at this point I do wish to remind skeptical readers that there are several atheists who admit Jesus was a historical figure and go on to lead happy and meaningful lives.

I conclude that the case is just not persuasive at all to see this as less than a simple statement of fact that Jesus was crucified by the authorities on Earth at the time. This is a contrast to the soon coming age of the Messiah when Jesus will instead stand in judgment over them.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156023-Rulers-Of-This-Age http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156006-Book-Plunge-Studying-The-Historical-Jesus&goto=newpost Tue, 28 May 2013 15:33:21 GMT Does Bock give good tools for learning?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

How is a Christian to go about studying the historical Jesus? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

Last night, I finished reading a book by Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary called "Studying The Historical Jesus." In this book, Bock does not really set out to give conclusions. He is writing for an audience that I believe consists of lay people interested in this kind of study and perhaps as a textbook for people starting off their college career.

Bock also writes from a conservative perspective, which is just fine of course. It's important to point this out since he is writing to people who I suspect might be apprehensive about doing historical Jesus study. "Study the historical Jesus? Isn't it a matter of faith? Don't we have the Inerrant Scripture? If that is the case, then how is it that we are to do historial study? Are we calling into question the reality of Jesus?"

Bock answers with a strong no and encourages us to enter into the field explaining to us how the work is to be done. He starts off by giving us some cultural context. What was the world like at the time of Jesus? What was it like right beforehand? How did the culture interact? I was quite pleased to see him talking about the importance of honor in the ancient world, something not at all stressed in most works that assumes the ancient person was just like us in their thinking.

Bock does give some brief apologetic, but it is not for the resurrection. It is simply for the existence of Jesus. Of course, even this historical certainty is coming into question these days largely by internet atheists who prefer reading non-scholars on the topic and wikipedia entries. Of course, events like this only encourage me seeing as this is a fine time for Christians to be learning real facts on historical Jesus study and how it should be done while our opponents intellectually bankrupt themselves.

Next, Bock gives us information about how the quests for the historical Jesus have progressed with the third quest especially going on looking into the Jewish roots of Jesus. (I have a suspicion we may even have a fourth quest going on with the look at the social-science information.) This is a highly helpful summary of the history for those who are starting out.

Finally, Bock lists the kinds of approaches to gospel study that are going on today such as form and redaction criticism. Bock urges Christians to not ignore these even if they are often done from skeptical bases. We can still use the information to our advantage and learn valuable insights on how to approach the text. After all, if the Jesus of orthodox Christianity is really the same as the historical Jesus, why should we be afraid of any historical study? True study will get us closer to that Jesus if not right there.

In conclusion, I recommend this book to help those who are wanting to learn more about Jesus study and how it should be done, as well as reminding us that being an orthodox Christian does not mean one cannot use the historical tools that have been handed to us. Why not take the weapons of our opponents and use them to our advantage?

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?156006-Book-Plunge-Studying-The-Historical-Jesus http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155997-Book-Plunge-On-The-Reliability-of-the-Old-Testament&goto=newpost Mon, 27 May 2013 16:32:56 GMT Is it fact or fiction?

The link can be found here

The text is as follows:

Can we trust the Old Testament? Let's talk about it on Deeper Waters.

The Old Testament is an important aspect of the Christian story. After all, we say Jesus is the solution to the problem, but in order to understand the solution, we need to understand the problem. After all, hearing that the answer to the question is 42 doesn't help until you know what the question is. Many of us spend much time studying the NT since the resurrection is absolutely essential to Christianity after all, but we should not neglect the Old Testament. Yet there is much literature to read in that area as well. Is there any resource that can tremendously help us with that?

There is. It is Kenneth Kitchen's book "On The Reliability of the Old Testament." Kitchen is a fine scholar in the field who wrote this to be a parallel to the work on the reliability of the NT. There are some 500 pages worth of content and it is fully packed. Hundreds of pages go to notes.

The book starts off in a spot I found odd, that of the divided kingdom of the OT. It is my suspicion that Kitchen starts here because this is where most of the archaeological evidence is. He goes on throughout the book to the rest of the OT and is quite blunt in his argumentation. He does not hesitate to refer to a position as poppycock or nonsense. He definitely has a strong antagonism to the JEPD hypothesis.

It is important to note that this book mainly focuses on people and places and shows that they were realities, although Kitchen readily admits when the case is that we do not have enough evidence in somewhere yet. Kitchen's defenses include that of David, the patriarchs, the Exodus, and even the long lifespan of the people in Genesis 5. If Kitchen is using a hypothesis instead of something far more backable, he lets it be known.

The reader of this work will be benefited highly by Kitchen's expertise. Nevertheless, there are some ways I would like to see the work improved.

I would not mind seeing more on the transmission of the text and how we know the text has been handed down accurately. Much of this has been written on the NT, but we have very little said about the OT in comparison.

I would also like to see more moral issues dealt with. There are times Kitchen does talk some about the conquest of Canaan and what happened morally, but not many, and I don't recall much on the concept of slavery in the Ancient Near East.

Also, much of this is not written in language readily accessible for those of us who do not study archaeology and it would be nice to see some more explanations and perhaps even a small section on how the archaeology is done and what can be expected to be found through archaeology.

Yet these downsides do not outweigh the positives. Anyone wanting to defend the OT owes it to themselves to get a copy of this book and read it. The reader who finishes will definitely walk away better equipped than when he came.

In Christ,
Nick Peters ]]> Deeper Waters ApologiaPhoenix http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?155997-Book-Plunge-On-The-Reliability-of-the-Old-Testament