April 3, 2013 · 1:53 pm

Little Differences: Jesus and the Problem of Perception


(See: On an Easter Night)

Previously, I told the story of a conversation I had with a customer, who had shared his views on Jesus and religion, as well as the two points he offered me as a challenge to what it was that I believed for the purpose of serious consideration. This is meant to cover the first of the two challenges, which is included below. If, in reading the challenge, you have something to add, feel encouraged to share with us here or use the challenge as a springboard for your own formal rebuttal. I pray that our Most High God would impart wisdom to you all.

Challenge:

“None of the scriptures that make up the four-fold Gospel are first-hand, in that they are not from the mouth or hands of Jesus Himself. No, instead, we have second-hand accounts, written from the men who ‘supposedly’ knew and saw Jesus, which means that, for us, they are third-hand accounts. More to the point, if he were to write about his mother, he would essentially write from how he perceives her instead of how she truly is, which is why there are so many little differences and variations in the four-fold Gospel itself.”

We could condense the challenge into two essential points:

  • None of the books in the New Testament are written by Jesus personally, but instead by His disciples.
  • Their perception of Jesus would have conflicted with the reality of Jesus, which results in the variations in the texts.

It is a given that each person will record and remember different aspects about certain events; this is observed often when police officers are trying to gather details about a particular crime or criminal from multiple witnesses. The writers of the four-fold Gospels are not really different in that manner and it is true that there are minor differences, but this is not to say that we have four Gospels that tell a different story, nor does it mean that we have four different pictures of Jesus. In church history, the writers of the Gospel accounts are depicted as symbols to describe the focus in their respective writings, for instance:

  • John is depicted as an eagle because his Gospel account flies to the height of Christ’s divinity.

Additionally, Matthew is often depicted as a man, Mark as a lion, and Luke as a bull for their focus on areas like Christ’s human nature (not mere humanity, but the incarnation of the Son), Kingship, and the Passion – a good resource for this is in the writings of Aquinas. Nevertheless, there was a specific area that they all seemed to focus on, but Jesus Himself is represented consistently in the same manner. The likeness to one another has led to a number of absurd propositions, like the notion that the writers acquired the quotes of Jesus through a collection of His sayings (Gospel Q) and not simply from their experience with Him or, as in the case with Mark and Luke, their experience with the very Apostles who were His own disciples. Luke himself even took care to write at the beginning of his Gospel account:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilledamong us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”

The problem with such a challenge, especially when it is made at the coattail of saying “Jesus is a good teacher” is that the truth about what is being written in reference to Jesus Himself is thrown into question. Furthermore, how can Jesus be perceived as a “good teacher” if the very texts which are written about Him are questioned? This question, for that matter, is thrown in the air, but is not supported by anything but the question itself. Similarities support the idea that the texts are written about a single individual and the variations reveal both that the writers were not in some secretive collusion with one another and that they wrote according to what they noticed about the events, as well as what was important for them to portray (e.g. Christ’s human nature and Passion).

The fact that the writings are written by the men who were around Jesus does not negate their validity by virtue of the fact that they are not written by Jesus Himself, but they do hold immense value as they show corroborating accounts of this One who has been the focal point of history. If Jesus is a good teacher, then the separate accounts can be seen as trustworthy, but if they cannot be as such, He cannot be seen as such a teacher. Even if they can be seen as trustworthy, though, room has not been left to simply see Him as a good teacher. The challenge here struggles because the one making the challenge perceives Christ in such a manner based on what they know from the Gospel accounts. As if this was not enough to squash the problem outright, one can also assess correctly that they were written and the events were passed down in a period of time that could have allowed ample proof against them.  No, instead, the world possesses four historical texts from separate individuals who wanted to share with others the extraordinary events as they had occurred.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote from their experiences with Jesus or travels with the very Apostles themselves, according to the earliest of church history. Among the four, Luke has been heralded as more than a just a trustworthy historian (Ramsay.The Bearing Of Recent Discovery On The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament). There is no legitimate reason to conclude that the writers’ depiction of Jesus is anything but accurately reflecting Jesus Himself. Perception or not, the view is consistent between the authors, but different enough to show that they weren’t gathering from the same source. The aforementioned challenge is superficial and cannot be sustained when scrutinized.

1 Comment

Filed under Christian Apologetics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 1, 2013 · 12:32 pm

Jesus the Good Teacher


Numerous centuries have brought, seemingly from the dust, men and women who have found purpose to lead men to what they believed to be the truth; this has led to the development of religions, philosophies, and general ideals of every flavor. Among the teachers of the world, though, few could ever be said to have had as great of an impact as the one, Jesus of Nazareth. This man taught us how to live and interact with others, leading to what could bring peace and unity to all men. More than this, he stands at the highest of them all because it is through this man that we have the largest religion on the face of this earth.

Ever hear something like that before? If I had a penny for every time I have heard it, I would have about $15. Well, I dunno, it doesn’t really matter, but the claim about Jesus is interesting. Dare we entertain the thought that Jesus was just a teacher, albeit a good one?

For being accepted as one of many in a collection of good and wise teachers worth paying attention to, Jesus certainly made exclusive claims that separate Him from every other teacher. More than this, many of His own claims referred to His own godhood (Mt. 9:1-8; Jn. 8:58). The matter of Jesus being a good teacher, though, can be wrapped up in two challenges:

To start, Jesus taught that He alone is the only way, the only truth, the only life (Jn 14:6). Furthermore, He adds that He alone is the only way to the Father, which means to say that there is “no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Secondly, Jesus made it perfectly clear that He expected to be resurrected after dying as a ransom for many (Mt 20:28; Mk 9:31). This had the opportunity to be squashed from the get-go because a body was something that could have been provided to disprove the claim and a small band of fearful disciples was not enough to get past the Roman soldiers posted outside of the tomb.

These two points demand that a side is chosen. If Jesus was incorrect and He is not the only way, truth, and life and, more so, did not rise from the dead, then He is most certainly not a “good teacher”; instead, if Jesus taught as such and was not correct, He would be a liar. If, however, Jesus truly did rise from the dead, then we can trust everything else He taught. The death and resurrection is the central point of both the purpose as to why He came and our very faith and the resurrection, if true, instantly validates everything else He taught. If it instantly validates everything else He taught, then to merely hold Him as a “good teacher” among other “good teachers” is to ignore the dire warnings He made to all who would not believe in Him as the sole propitiation for our desperate and rotten condition of sinfulness.

These challenges must be overcome and cannot be, even if they could have been overcome, though, Jesus does not become a good teacher because of it, but a liar. No, this is irrelevant, because the resurrection itself or, more specifically, the empty tomb had every opportunity in the world to be disproven and the budding church went through every opportunity to be crushed before it got too large. In addition to this, we also face the trouble with explaining the men who, after originally being fearful of the Jewish zealots killing them as well, left their isolation with confidence in their message and faith. These same men left their lives of desperate fear of death to courageously facing the death that came to each one of them at the hands of their persecutors. No man goes for decades teaching and willingly dying for what they know to be false and the disciples’ lives testify to a significant event occurring at a time in which they were so unsure and fearful, giving them confidence to pour their whole lives into something that would lead to mortal persecution. Room has not been left for Jesus to be considered a good teacher, but a liar or the only and essential Savior.

1 Comment

Filed under Christian Apologetics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

· 12:28 pm

On an Easter Night


I had been struggling with questions from friends and family, who asked why I had to work on Easter/Resurrection Sunday. Considering the significance of the day, it was puzzling, to say the least, that a Christian would have to go and put in a full shift. Admittedly, I was unable to find a sufficient answer beyond the reality that it is expected of me and, until the Lord blesses me with a formal opportunity to write and teach, I must make ends meet this way.

My answer is better now.

I speak with customers all night and, last night, when one probed into my life outside of work, I explained that I was a writer on Christian theology and general philosophy to a lesser extent. Considering the rapport I had with him during the business portion of the conversation, he was comfortable with sharing his personal beliefs on religion and Jesus. He went further, sharing that many were shocked to hear that he was not a Christian and that his view extended to a “gnostic spiritualism” of sorts, where he believed, among other things, that Jesus definitely was a good teacher, but was a good teacher among many good teachers; this, he stated was the product of his own belief which had been formed since he was fifteen.

Knowing the limitations I had at work, I advised that my current situation would not afford me the freedom to devote as much time as I would have liked, but, because it is my heart’s passion, I was obligated to discuss Jesus with him. Now, instead of delving into my two-fold challenge to him in this, I decided to present it a bit more formally, here.

After listening intently, he agreed to consider the two points I presented to him and offered two for me:

1. None of the scriptures that make up the four-fold Gospel are first-hand, in that they are not from the mouth or hands of Jesus Himself. No, instead, we have second-hand accounts, written from the men who “supposedly” knew and saw Jesus, which means that, for us, they are third-hand accounts. More to the point, if he were to write about his mother, he would essentially write from how he perceives her instead of how she truly is, which is why there are so many little differences and variations in the four-fold Gospel itself. The answer can be found here.

2. Each faith possesses similarities at each of their cores. There are so many similarities, in fact, that it points to a unity wherein each equates to the right path, going to the same destination. Because of this, each path is equally good for spiritual enlightenment. Consider a hundred rolls of cotton fabric of varying colors: the colors are not as important as the fabric itself and the colors only serve the purpose of appealing to specific individuals (i.e. one may like blue and another may like red).

Fascinating points, all in all, and I am happy to consider them fully. Over the next couple of weeks, I will be offering my responses to each of these points because they are very common arguments and I gave my word that I would give them as serious of a consideration as he asked me to. With this, we parted ways, but I was left with a better answer than I did at the start of my day. Our Lord saw it fit for me to work and provided me with an opportunity to evangelize with another I may never have spoken with unless I arrived at work on Sunday evening. For this, I am so very thankful that our kind God who, despite my shortcomings, has continued to give me opportunities to speak the truth and a voice with which I may. Sunday evening showed me, once more, how wondrous the way of our Lord truly is, even by turning such a task as working on a significant day into an amazing opportunity to reach out to another with the Gospel. To He who saved me from the pit – us all from condemnation – all honor and praise forever and ever. Amen.

See also: Jesus the Good Teacher, Jesus and the Problem of Perception, and a response to the second challenge coming soon!

1 Comment

Filed under Christian Apologetics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

November 14, 2012 · 10:55 am

On an Open Letter to Christians


Some time ago, in the beginning years of my changed life in Christ, I took it upon myself to sign up on the Rational Response Squad’s site to hold conversations with people who did not believe. This exposed me to a flood of different forms of atheists from the introverts who do not actively preach, but, instead, merely do not believe and the proselytizing atheists who ridiculously embrace the logically incoherent claim, “There is no God.” Needless to say, while life events halted my continuation of discussions there, the time that was spent doing so reaped numerous benefits in the methodology with which I address skepticism, for which I am very thankful.

Recently, due to my laziness in not stopping them, I received an email update about their blog, on which was an “Open letter to Christians against gay marriage”. Never one to shy away from something that might be challenging, I read through it and felt the need to address the essential points of the letter:

  • Marriage was created by men to control women
  • Marriage is now considered a formal, legal agreement
  • The Biblical definition of marriage is antiquated and on equal grounds to supporting slavery
  • Complaining about “gay marriage” is anti-human
  • Homosexuality as caused by genetics has scientific support
  • God does not exist

To start, I say to all who may count themselves among the brethren that we should feel ashamed if we should ever treat anyone with anything but love. It does not matter what the sin is, for we are all sinners, yet transformed by grace and being conformed to the likeness of the Son – that is the only difference. The reality is that we are in a fallen world and experience life, ideally, as pilgrims who are on a journey home. As such, we should live the lives we are taught and told to live.

Now, in the letter, Brian Sapient starts by claiming that marriage was created by men to control women, which was left unsubstantiated and would normally be left as mere opinion and held to be irrelevant. The history we have does reveal that, in many cases, marriage had ties with sexual desires, but the exact reasons why men and women became bound to one another does not exactly exist in worldly accounts. If we turn to the Scriptures, we get a sense as to why men and women choose to submit themselves to one spouse and, naturally, choose the opposite sex:

“The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.” (Genesis 2:18-22, NIV)

Going further, it reads (v. 24), “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

Say what you will about your individual acceptance of the validity of the Scripture, but this does offer an explanation as to the reason why men and women through time long to bind themselves to one another. It [marriage] had little or nothing to do with control or possession of the woman, but to fulfill the inherent need for companionship. In the sections that discuss the traits and responsibilities of spouses, we see that both the man and the woman have responsibilities to each other. In the last chapter of Proverbs, for example, we read of the woman, who does so much for her family and is praised for her hard work. The husband, likewise, is seen as a respectable man who is both kind to his wife and respected in the public arena where he had his duties with the elders. Furthermore, Paul writes to husbands with the duty that they should love their wives [“just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”] as they would love themselves (Ephesians 5:25-33). This is hardly an antiquated notion that should be abandoned.

Marriage, though, has always been something of a legal binding as well; this hasn’t really changed much, however, the legality, which recognizes the binding, is but the surface of the binding itself. Marriage is argued to be the uniting of two puzzle pieces which were cut from a whole in a manner specifically made for each other that fits according to the spiritual and physical intent of the binding itself.

The problem we have against homosexuality obviously stems from the world-view that God created man and woman to be united and multiply. Assuming that multiplying is a responsibility we are given, we conclude that homosexuality would go against the physiological purpose of the designed, human body; this is not disgraceful in the least and, if anything, is consistent with the belief itself. Through history, one can also see this lifestyle as a sign of growing decadence in a culture (think Rome before its fall). Our desire, though, as parents, soon-to-be, or hope-to-be parents is to be able to protect our children from over-exposure to growing decadence while enforcing the moral guidelines we know to be right for human life. I understand the prior comment is a point of contention, but the moral guidelines are essentially those which protect, preserve, and further human life, if we are to merely look at the worldly sense of it.

Sapient adds that there were reasons, also, to believe that homosexuality is genetic and provides a resource from which we are to be reasoned into the acceptance of such genetic inheritances (“Are We Born Gay?” by Tom Bestor). What is “shocking” is the lax of supporting resources to substantiate the claims in the article itself, but, in all fairness, the writer writes,

“Science doesn’t have ‘proof’ as to what causes left-handedness, either. Like sexuality, it is probably a combination of genetics and in utero environmental factors, reinforced in early childhood by societal norms. But it’s clear that both are most likely fixed at birth.”

This is a weak resource and in no way supports the claim that such sexual leanings are genetic. In fact, there has been no conclusive evidence, so far, that proves the link between homosexuality and genes in humans. As for homosexual actions performed in animals, one cannot say that this is necessarily part of a genetic predisposition.

I can remember my late dog, Gizmo, who, in his prime, would try to have his way with every stuffed animal in the home. It is also not unusual for people to be “assaulted” in a similar sense. If we argue for the genetic predisposition of one, it is fair to argue for the other as it is quite common in canines. More could be said on this, but I would prefer to keep it free of any more examples to fit in line with the purpose and nature of this website.

Everything in the letter is wrapped within a single point, which guides the message: “Your God does not exist.” I have addressed this logically incoherent nonsense elsewhere, so I will spare a full look at it, but it explains why the perception is that marriage’s original intent was control/possession. In fact, Nietzsche made the mistake in Chapter 14, Book One, of his classic work, The Gay Science (“Gay” being used in the original archaic sense of the word), where he argues that love itself is merely an avaricious lust for possession. The point could not be further from the truth, yet eyes fueled by a natural world-view cannot see beyond this.

We have no choice outside of living and teaching accordingly, though this is not inherently opposed to the demand to love as we have been loved first. Our disagreement and opposition is not one of hatred, but of an underlying hope that all would surrender their lives to Jesus, who suffered what He did not deserve to give a wicked people what they did not deserve: salvation and reconciliation to the Father.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Christian Apologetics, Christian thought

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 9, 2012 · 11:32 pm

Bad Arguments: The Omnipotence Paradox


“Can God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?”

If you have involved yourself in any interfaith dialogue or evangelism, you have likely come across this interesting question. This is a common trap provided by skeptics to create havoc in the minds of the believers and, if the believer is not careful, they can succumb to the fake dangers of what is believed to be conclusive proof against God’s omnipotence (which is also coupled with other “proofs” against God’s very existence). Despite the seemingly difficult nature of the question, I believe firmly that it is actually quite easy to navigate without falling into either conclusion.

The question essentially concludes that, if God can create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it, He cannot be omnipotent for God would be able to lift the stone and, alternately, if God cannot create such a stone, then He could not be omnipotent because a truly omnipotent God would be able to do so. This is also seen in other variations such as: “Can God create another God of equal power and capability?” or “Can God make a square circle?” I join the countless minds over the last centuries which have shared the sentiment that the question points to a grotesque misunderstanding of the term “omnipotence”. Omnipotence is not being used in a manner that indicates the ability to do all things at all times, but, when we use it with respect to the nature of God, we conclude that God’s omnipotence is His ability to do all things within the context of the nature He has revealed.

What has been revealed to us?

To start, we know that there is not one who is like our God – He is the First and the Last: Is. 44:6; 48:12; Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:13.

Secondly, we know that He is not subordinate to any: Is. 40:13; Rm 11:34

For being such a difficult and tricky sounding question, it really is simple to avoid. God’s omnipotence is His ability to do all things according to His nature. He cannot stop being what He is and there is nothing greater.

6 Comments

Filed under Bad Arguments, Christian Apologetics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2012 · 6:30 pm

Reflections


“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” 1 Timothy 1:15-17

I have shared little else with you all aside from expositions on Scripture and defense against preposterous doctrines and arguments of liars and false teachers, but, today, I write tear-stained words of thankfulness and joy. See, in two days, I will be at the seventh year to the day from the time I first heard the voice of my Shepherd call out to me while employed at an adult store in St. Louis, MO. This has brought about a period of reflection and, for whatever value it has, I want to share with you all. Sparing the deeper details that would draw this out too long, of course, I will start with the direct path that brought me to the moment of surrender.

In my early teens, I began to stray from the relatively safe home I was raised in and became involved with things that gave the appearance of being “cool” while creating sensations of intoxication. I began to drink often and started smoking cigarettes – “innocent” enough, some would say. Soon after, I experimented with pot and began selling cigarettes and other items in school on top of drinking during class. From this point, though not a cause of it, I soon found myself in a large group of friends that went by a moniker that I will keep for privacy’s sake. We would drink and party, but this was being turned into a violent gang by the son of a rich couple, who was enthralled by that lifestyle. Being one of the biggest and more intimidating members, not to mention the years of instruction in fighting from my father, made me one of the three members people went to when they had a problem with another person. At this time, I was smoking pot more frequently and drinking even more, returning to my apartment often in the early morning drunk and stumbling.

I took advantage of my mother’s fatigue with dealing with other serious family problems and ran around with ruffians who were more interested in stealing and partying. Near to this time, I found myself becoming quite good at sneaking into apartments and homes, stealing expensive, but portable belongings. Times would come when one of us were in trouble or were being threatened and we had to do bad things to stop it and various girls were being raped and we had to do bad things to stop it from happening. Traveling forward in time by a year or two: the latter of the two scenarios hit much closer to home when the aforementioned “son of a rich couple” was doing something unspeakable to another unnamed person who was much closer to me at the time. His actions brought him close to being murdered, but something stopped me from fulfilling the act. The throw away was as good as purchased and he was never going to see me, but something stopped me from doing this, despite how my heart felt.

Traveling even further to mid-September 2005, I was alone, in the middle of my shift at an adult store where my eyes beheld many disgusting and horrible things, and playing with my new cell phone. Accessing the application store, I found a free trial of the King James Version Bible and downloaded it. Afterwards, I opened the app to the Gospel of Matthew, I believe, but the “Sermon on the Mount” and something changed immediately. I knew that I needed Jesus – it really is that simple. I just knew it. Closing out my shift, I went back to my apartment where I fell to my knees and surrendered my life to Him and realizing that, in twenty-three years, my life had amounted to nothing but drugs and violence, stealing and lust, but one day knelt before Him was far greater.

He was worthy – He still is! Looking back, I could see the incredible grace of this Shepherd who sought high and low for one lost sheep whose fleece was dirty and tainted and He cleaned it white as snow. To think that even all of heaven rejoices when a single sinner repents and surrenders to Jesus! This is why Paul’s words grace the top of this writing: I was that sinner. I mocked His disciples when they witnessed to me and glorified lies and idols. I glorified the creation over the Creator and lifted myself up over He who sought me, but by His unfathomable grace and mercy, He saved me. It is for this reason, I have no doubt, that we will lay our crowns at His feet, for He truly is worthy.

To the One who died to save evil men and women; to the Most High, who moved to us for our reconciliation; to the One way, truth, and life – the One, Jesus all honor and praise is deserved. Amen.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Christian thought, General Writings

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

July 22, 2012 · 12:00 pm

Bad Arguments: The Fear of Death


Let’s consider for a moment the religions of this world: across the board, adherents of countless religions are expected to refrain from various pleasures from alcohol and drug use to pre-marital sexual intercourse and consumption of certain foods. Despite this required or expected deprivation, little stops the uneducated skeptic from claiming that the general belief in God is based on a certain fear of dying. In the various religions of the world, the actions listed above, combined with a multitude of other deeds which are frowned upon are seen from the moral viewpoint as in the sense of the ideal only being achievable by virtue of abstaining from partaking in them. For the Christian, however, the act of abstaining is for edification and growth. Such growth is desirable only through that which is inside of them, yet they deny themselves the pleasures that this world holds for the purpose of being pure and overcoming the desire for such things for the purpose of purification; this is not the “fear of death” that the uneducated skeptic would have people believe. No, instead, the fear of death compels a person to pursue pleasures – to indulge!

Soren Kierkegaard wrote quite wisely that “Death induces the sensual person to say: Let us eat and drink, because tomorrow we shall die – but this is sensuality’s cowardly lust for life, that contemptible order of things where one lives in order to eat and drink instead of eating and drinking in order to live” (Three Discourses on Imagined Occasions). For the adherent of a particular religion, it is the inherent knowledge and thirst that leads them to know that there is something more than what we see, that is to say something deeper and transcendent over the physical. For the Christian, the sole capability of refraining from such things rests on the knowledge that Christ Jesus rose from the grave and that we have a hope greater than the temporary enjoyment of the particular pleasures in life. This argument is built on shaky ground and cannot stand under any margin of scrutiny.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Bad Arguments, Christian Apologetics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,