Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 119

Challenge: Jesus Didn't Die on the Cross

The challenge this week comes from the Qur’an:

[T]hey said (in
boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of
Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to
appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no
(certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed
him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power,
Wise;-

If you were talking to a Muslim friend
who denied Jesus’ crucifixion, you could ask questions to draw out why Muslims
are so repelled by the idea of Jesus dying on the cross. What, in their
theology, is so opposed to the idea? But since you’re not talking to a friend
right now, you may need to do a little reading online to find out more about
their view. Try to get to the bottom of this difference between us, because while
it’s important to respond to Muslims with the facts pointing to the resurrection,
merely talking about the facts won’t
resolve for them the contradiction between the crucifixion and their
understanding of what God would and wouldn’t do. Any fact can be dismissed as
impossible if it doesn’t make sense to them theologically.

So find out where they’re coming from,
and address this objection at its theological root. The difference between our
beliefs about Good Friday goes to the heart of the Gospel, and that’s always a
great place to take a conversation with a Muslim.

Give us your ideas in the comments
below, and then Alan will post a video with his response on Thursday.

[Explore past challenges here and here.]

If the Holy Spirit Doesn't Speak to Us, What Does He Do? (Video)

If the Holy Spirit doesn't speak to us, what does He do?

Never Read a Press Release Headline

Find a Bible verse you don’t understand, read
it in its surrounding context. Find a surprising headline, always be sure
to do the same.

I just came across this: “Ancient
Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ.'” Well, that is news, indeed!
The first paragraph gives more information:

American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill will be appearing before the
British public for the first time in London on the 19th of October to present a
controversial new discovery: ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove,
according to Atwill, that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman
aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.

Wow! So why did they
do it?

Atwill asserts that
Christianity did not really begin as a religion, but a sophisticated government
project, a kind of propaganda exercise used to pacify the subjects of the Roman
Empire. "Jewish sects in Palestine at the time, who were waiting for a
prophesied warrior Messiah, were a constant source of violent insurrection
during the first century," he explains. "When the Romans had
exhausted conventional means of quashing rebellion, they switched to
psychological warfare. They surmised that the way to stop the spread of zealous
Jewish missionary activity was to create a competing belief system. That's when
the 'peaceful' Messiah story was invented. Instead of inspiring warfare, this
Messiah urged turn-the-other-cheek pacifism and encouraged Jews to 'give onto
Caesar' and pay their taxes to Rome."

And the evidence for this?

What seems to have
eluded many scholars is that the sequence of events and locations of Jesus
[sic] ministry are more or less the same as the sequence of events and locations of
the military campaign of [Emperor] Titus Flavius as described by Josephus. This
is clear evidence of a deliberately constructed pattern. The biography of Jesus
is actually constructed, tip to stern, on prior stories, but especially on the
biography of a Roman Caesar.

So…when are we going to get to the part
about the confession?

How could this go unnoticed
in the most scrutinised books of all time? "Many of the parallels are
conceptual or poetic, so they aren't all immediately obvious. After all, the
authors did not want the average believer to see what they were doing, but they
did want the alert reader to see it. An educated Roman in the ruling class
would probably have recognised the literary game being played." Atwill
maintains he can demonstrate that "the
Roman Caesars left us a kind of puzzle literature that was meant to be solved
by future generations, and the solution to that puzzle is 'We invented Jesus
Christ, and we're proud of it'" [emphasis mine].

And there it is. Not
exactly a confession. This is starting to sound more than a little fishy…

"[W]hat my work has done is give permission to many of those ready to leave the religion to make a clean break. We've got the evidence now to show exactly where the story of
Jesus came from. Although Christianity can be a comfort to some, it can also be
very damaging and repressive, an insidious form of mind control that has led to
blind acceptance of serfdom, poverty, and war throughout history. To this day,
especially in the United States, it is used to create support for war in the
Middle East."

No bias to see here.
Move along.

Does the "Unreasonable" Nature of the Virgin Conception Invalidate the Story of Jesus?

For some, the miraculous claim of the virgin conception of Jesus
disqualifies the Gospel accounts as reliable history. The famous writer,
atheist and debater, Christopher Hitchens regularly referred to the
virgin conception as a clear example of the unreasonable nature of the Gospels.
Hitchens would occasionally attempt to demonstrate the illogical,
unreasonable nature of his debate opponent by asking the simple
question: “Do you believe Jesus was conceived miraculously and born of a
virgin?” when his Christian opponent replied, “Yes,” Hitchens would
typically say, “I rest my case.” For many atheists, the virgin
conception is so obviously irrational it disqualifies the story of Jesus
before it even begins.

Skeptics and critics of Christianity reject the mere possibility of the virgin conception because their philosophical naturalism
(their belief that the natural world is all that exists) precludes the
possibility of the miraculous intervention of a supernatural Being. As
it turns out, this presupposition of naturalism lies at the heart of the
dilemma:

Naturalism Is the Worldview Under Examination

When we begin to examine the possible existence of God (the
aforementioned supernatural Being), we are actually examining the
viability of philosophical naturalism. We are, in essence, asking the
questions, “Is the natural world all that exists?” “Is there anything
beyond the physical, material world we measure with our five senses?”
“Is there any way to actually know immaterial, spiritual entities (or
truths) exist?” In asking these questions, we are putting naturalism to
the test.

Naturalism Shouldn’t, Therefore, Be Our Presupposition
It would be unfair, therefore, to begin by presupposing
nothing supernatural could ever exist or occur. If we are attempting to
be fair about assessing the existence of God (or assessing the
reasonable nature of the virgin conception), we cannot exclude the very
possibility of the supernatural in the first place. Our presupposition
against the supernatural would unfairly taint our examination of the
claim. Instead, we ought to remain open to the the miraculous to fairly
examine any claim of supernatural activity.

Naturalism Accepts At Least One “Extra-Natural” Event

Most of us already accept the reasonable reality of at least one
“extra-natural” (aka “miraculous”) event. The Standard Cosmological
Model of naturalism is still the “Big Bang Theory,” a hypothesis that
proposes that all space, time and matter (all the elements of the
natural universe) had a beginning (a “cosmological singularity”). Whatever the cause was, it could not have been something from the natural realm, as this realm was what resulted from the “singularity.”

Naturalism May Not, Therefore, Be An Accurate View of the World

It appears that the beginning of the Universe can be attributed to an
all-powerful “extra-natural” source. If this source was the supernatural
God of the Bible, it would appear that He has the ability to intervene
in the natural realm with creative force. The virgin conception, in
light of this kind of power, is a reasonable prospect.

The virgin
conception defies naturalistic explanation, but that shouldn’t surprise
us. Christianity has always argued that the supernatural (the
miraculous) is reasonable; Christianity has always challenged
naturalism. We cannot reject the virgin conception on naturalistic
grounds without first examining the larger claims of the Christian
Worldview. If there is sufficient reason to believe God exists (and created everything from nothing), then the virgin conception is certainly within His power and equally reasonable.

Most Parents Aren't Ready to Train Their Own Kids, So Let Us Help You!

I’ve never had someone
cry after my atheist role-play. Until now. 

In September, I
had the opportunity to speak to a group of parents from Village Academy
Christian School in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Earlier in the day, I taught the junior and senior high
students at chapel and spoke to three different twelfth grade classes. I role played an atheist with the seniors,
to give them a glimpse of the intellectual challenges awaiting them at college,
and decided to give the parents, who had come out for an evening lecture, a
glimpse in the same way. 

 

There was no surprise factor. The parents knew who I was and the Christian organization I
represented. Indeed, I told the
audience what I was about to do, turned my back on them for just a moment, and
then turned round again in full atheist character. I jumped into my role and they jumped into theirs,
attempting to defend the faith against atheist professor “Dr. Kunkle.” Sadly, they were ill equipped to handle
my challenges. I was glad to see
their fighting spirit, but their responses were only vigorous in style, not
substance. After half-an-hour,
many parents were exasperated and I ended the role-play. 

“How was that for you?” I asked. “Extremely frustrating,” was the immediate parental
consensus. 

“Why was it so frustrating?” I pressed. One mom blurted out, “Because I didn’t
have any good answers.” As soon as
the words left her mouth, tears began streaming down her cheeks. It was a painful recognition of her own
inadequacy, and she knew what was at stake. As I glanced around the room, other parents were nodding in
agreement, eyes moist with their own tears. 

Caught off guard, I began to tear up, too. I felt such compassion for these
good-hearted yet unequipped parents. Quickly gathering my emotions, I looked that mom in the eyes and gently
replied, “I know exactly how you feel.
I felt that way, too, when Dr. David Lane was dismantling my
Christianity in front of my peers, in my college philosophy class.” I told the parents my story and
encouraged them to prepare themselves so, in turn, they can prepare their own
kids. 

Afterward, parent after parent thanked me. They expressed their deep appreciation
for the wake-up call, despite the accompanying painful realizations. And the mom who burst into tears? She walked up and gave me a big
hug. Then she shared how her
21-year old son, a student at Duke University, had turned his back on Christ
while at college. She was
convicted to begin a dialogue with him, as well as with her second son, a
junior at Village Academy. I
encouraged her, shared some resources, and gave her my email address with an
open invitation to contact me anytime. 

Oftentimes, we don’t take the necessary steps toward growth
until we’re made to feel uncomfortable. That night, parents at Village Academy Christian School felt very
uncomfortable and they were motivated
to make changes. But what about you? If you were confronted by the claims of an atheist or skeptic, how would you answer? Could you answer? And can you prepare your kids to answer? If you're unsure or if the answer is "no," we hope to be your ally.  

Join us at the end of this month, October 25-26, for the Rethink Student Apologetics conference. For students who are in junior high all the way through college, Rethink will equip them "to give a reason for the hope" they have in Christ (I Peter 3:15). We'll cover topics like evil, tolerance, Islam, the resurrection of Jesus, abortion, worldviews, and more. Adults are welcome, as long as you bring at least one student with you!

New Study on Children of Same-Sex Parents

Mark Regnerus comments on a new
study from Canada (published in the Review
of Economics of the Household) on the graduation rates of children living
with same-sex parents:

The truly unique aspect of Allen’s
study, however, may be its ability to distinguish gender-specific effects of
same-sex households on children. He writes:

the particular gender mix of a
same-sex household has a dramatic difference in the association with child
graduation. Consider the case of girls. . . . Regardless of the controls and
whether or not girls are currently living in a gay or lesbian household, the
odds of graduating from high school are considerably lower than any other
household type. Indeed, girls living in gay households are only 15 percent as
likely to graduate compared to girls from opposite sex married homes.

Thus although the children of
same-sex couples fare worse overall, the disparity is unequally shared, but is
instead based on the combination of the gender of child and gender of parents.
Boys fare better—that is, they’re more likely to have finished high school—in
gay households than in lesbian households. For girls, the opposite is true.
Thus the study undermines not only claims about “no differences” but also
assertions that moms and dads are interchangeable. They’re not.

The truth is that men and women are different. They parent differently.
They interact with boys and girls differently. They provide different things to
their children.

Our culture is (and has been for decades) denying these
differences in order to promote sameness­—in genders, roles, couples, etc. But
reality has a way of asserting itself. We can recognize it, live within it, and
promote human flourishing; or we can continue trying to force everyone into a
new, more politically correct mold of a “better” human nature and suffer the
consequences.

(HT: Lenny Esposito)

The Equal Rights Argument

I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to join Right to Life of Central California at a
recent Fresno City College training and outreach. The volunteers were trained
in part by our former speaker, Steve Wagner of Justice for All, and they were experts
at creating congenial conversations about abortion with the students passing by
their exhibit (see a snapshot below from the free speech board they put up for
people to post their opinions).

Josh Brahm, the Education Director for RLCC, describes
the approach his organization has been teaching volunteers to focus on:

We’re asking pro-choice people if
they agree that all human adults have an equal right to life.

When they say yes, we ask them, “Doesn’t
that mean there must be something the same about us?”

In other words, if we all have an equal
right to life, then we must all have something in common that demands that we
treat each other equally, and we must have that property equally. It
can’t be something (like size or intelligence) that comes in degrees, or it
wouldn’t explain our equal right to life.

When the pro-choice person agrees
with that conclusion, we simply ask them what is the same about us….

We wait patiently,
and if they give an answer, we engage it. But if they have no idea, we then ask
if they would like to hear our answer. Nearly everybody says yes.

Our answer is that we all have humanness
in common. That’s something that doesn’t come in degrees. It’s an
all-or-nothing kind of thing.

And if being human is what gives us
intrinsic value, then that explains a lot of data. It explains why all the
adult humans have an equal right to life, even though we have so many
differences. It also explains why things like racism and sexism are wrong.
Those things focus on a surface difference that doesn’t morally matter, and
ignores the thing we have in common, which IS what morally matters!

Josh says they’ve been having a lot of success changing
people’s minds with this argument, which is surprising yet intriguing to me—surprising
because I wouldn’t expect the more philosophical and less concrete idea of
“humanness” to be compelling to the average person; intriguing because it
really did seem to resonate with the “person on the street,” from what I saw.

This argument depends on our having an intuition of intrinsic
human value and equal rights, but I’m not convinced this is an intuition. I suspect
it’s actually cultural
capital from the biblical worldview, and as that fades and people reject
the idea of intrinsic human value, this argument may become less and less
effective. (For this reason, I think you would have less luck with a philosophy
student steeped in another worldview than you would with the average person who
has absorbed, though perhaps not consciously evaluated and accepted, a more
traditional, Christian view of the human person.) But for now, if people are
finding it compelling, let’s use it while we can.

You can see a video about the training RLCC offers in conjunction with JFA here.

Christians and Western Pioneers

Christianity Today has an interesting article about the role Christians played, especially pastors, in settling the western United States:

Though such signs of spiritual life appeared all over the western landscape, they are completely absent from most people's visions of the nineteenth-century American frontier. Names like Buffalo Bill, Sitting Bull, Annie Oakley, Calamity Jane, Billy the Kid, and Wyatt Earp are almost synonymous with the West, while names like William D. Bloys, Daniel S. Tuttle, Charles Sheldon, Sheldon Jackson, and Brother Van Orsdel ring few bells. Yet if one looks at actual accomplishments, the situation might well be reversed. Most western communities owe far more to these unheralded clerics than they do to the high-profile outlaws or icons.

From about 1840 to the end of the century, these largely anonymous ministers shaped the contours of western life in three major ways. They formed the first churches and Sunday schools, which promoted social stability while reining in local violence; they developed a distinctly western style of Christianity that emphasized a non-denominational message of salvation and personal ethics; and they helped lay the institutional foundations—orphanages, hospitals, and schools—for scores of western communities....

Throughout the region, western clergy also helped lay the institutional infrastructure for their communities. Except for the territorial and state governments and the saloons—which received near-universal condemnation—the West lacked permanent institutions of any sort. Thus the ministers found themselves called upon to fill a genuine need by founding orphanages, hospitals, and schools.

Virtually all the early western hospitals (those of the U. S. Army excepted) had some sort of denominational affiliation. The makeshift hospital in the Catholic mining town of Price, Utah, drew its funds from a compulsory donation from every miner. The nursing nuns left only when the ores played out. The Protestant Episcopal Church established a small hospital in Indian territory to aid "Natives," miners, and railroad men, and also set up a larger facility on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona. Brother Van led the Methodists in establishing at least nine hospitals in Montana....

Read more about these Christian pioneers here.

What Was the Purpose of the Command against Mixed Threads?

Adam Parker of Bring the Books has an
interesting take on why the Israelites were commanded not to use mixed
threads in their clothing:

This view says that the passage is not prohibiting mixed threads because it was
the clothing of prostitutes. Nor is this prohibition merely meant to be a
picture of holiness and Israel's distinction from among the nations. Rather,
this prohibition had a very practical purpose. Numbers 16:1-40
records an incident when the laity sought to take priestly duties for
themselves. In this view Deut.
22:11 (and Lev. 19:19)
actually address a real and pressing issue: namely the temptation for the laity
to resent or break down the distinction between priests and laity among the
Israelites. Given this understanding of the prohibition of mixed threads,
we see that God is placing barriers between the people and the Levites to keep
such events as the rebellion of Korah from taking place. It is also easy to
explain to the skeptic why Christians no longer observe this prohibition. Since
the New Testament no longer distinguishes elders from the laity by clothing
this command regarding mixed threads is no longer relevant except perhaps in
terms of a persistent recognition that the Church still has leaders and elders
whom the members are to submit to (Hebrews 13:17).

So rather than the command being about a separation between
the Israelites and other nations, Parker says it’s about making a distinction
between the priests and the laity. This sounds reasonable, especially since
there was a similar prohibition
against the laity using the particular blend of incense that was only to be used
in the tabernacle (later, the temple) by the priests:

Then the Lord said to Moses, “Take
for yourself spices, stacte and onycha and galbanum, spices with pure
frankincense; there shall be an equal part of each. With it you shall make
incense, a perfume, the work of a perfumer, salted, pure, and holy. You
shall beat some of it very fine, and put part of it before the testimony in the
tent of meeting where I will meet with you; it shall be most holy to you. The
incense which you shall make, you shall not make in the same proportions for
yourselves; it shall be holy to you for the Lord. Whoever shall make any
like it, to use as perfume, shall be cut off from his people” (Exodus
30:34-38).

But I don’t think this prohibition against mixed fibers for
the laity need be merely a practical command meant to maintain the proper,
ordained authority structure (and I think Parker might agree with me on this). When
creating the Israelite culture through the Law, God used many visual parables
to illustrate the setting apart of the holy from the profane. Those who were
ordained to stand before God for the sake of the people were set apart in a special
way because God is holy, great, and
beautiful. All the commands for the specific clothing, the decorations, and
the objects in the tabernacle were meant to express this truth about God.

You shall make holy garments
for Aaron your brother [the priest], for
glory and for beauty (Exodus 28:2).

You shall also consecrate [the items in the tabernacle], that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy (Exodus 30:29).

[Those not ordained to do so] shall
not go in to see the holy objects
even for a moment, or they will die (Numbers 4:20).

The separation between man and a holy God wasn’t just
explained to the Israelites, it was experienced and seen as they lived out the
commands of the Law every day. God spent more than a thousand years preparing us
for Christ in this way. Try to read Hebrews
7-10 with the eyes of those who lived the holiness code in the Law—those
who were always at a distance from God because of their sin, those who were
required to participate in the endless cleansing rituals reminding them of this
distance—and you will be awestruck at what it means to be united to Christ, our
priest, who has truly and finally made us holy, tearing down the curtain
separating us from the most holy place where God dwells.

And Jesus cried out again with a
loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was
torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split
(Matthew 27:50-51).

Parker goes on to explain why he finds this view of the
mixed fiber commandment compelling:

a) It has ancient pedigree….
b) It accounts for the previous command for the priests to wear mixed
threads….
c) It allows for harmonization within the Pentateuch rather than
disharmony.

You can read
his full post here.

Links Mentioned on the 10/08/13 Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

Video: College students sign petition to legalize 'fourth trimester abortions' by Ben Johnson


The Death of Humanness by Greg Koukl (PDF)


Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts by Craig Keener


Drifting towards Darwin by Greg Koukl (PDF)


The Trouble with Theistic Evolution by Melinda Penner


An adult at 18? Not any more: Adolescence now ends at 25 by Victoria Woollaston


Greg's advice to a teacher to stand firm in her convictions (listen at 2:11:49)

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.